Military Review

Why Russia most often fought with Turkey

99

In the list of countries with which Russia has throughout its stories there was the greatest number of military conflicts, Turkey is confidently on the first line. 12 collisions (according to another version - 16) in less than 4 centuries - this is serious. Only Poland and Sweden, with representatives of which Russian soldiers converged on the battlefields also repeatedly, can “argue” with her. Why did it turn out so that most often Russia was forced to fight precisely with Turkey? What prevented the two states from living in peace and harmony?


The reasons are fairly obvious, even if they have some differences for different periods of confrontation. It began, in fact, with the fact that both countries represented empires that were at a developmental stage, which is determined by the desire for external expansion, the expansion of their own territories and, in modern terms, “spheres of vital interest”. Between Russia and Turkey lay such attractive regions as the Black Sea and the Caucasus, to which each country had its own views. Moreover, of course, they are absolutely mutually exclusive. And for dominion on the Black Sea itself, the struggle was not for life, but for death.

However, it is necessary to pay tribute to historical justice - the first is the Turkish side, the first aggressive actions and campaigns on clearly foreign territory began in the seventeenth century. In Istanbul, they sought to "take under the wing" the remains of the broken Golden Horde - Kazan, Astrakhan, and later the Crimean Khanate. Naturally, this was done not so much with the officially declared goal of “protecting co-religionists,” but with the aim of turning the territories they occupied into their own outposts into further seizure of the already original Russian lands. Such plans were not met by John the Terrible, who did not name himself emperor, but who was essentially an emperor ... they did not meet the slightest ... The Ottomans who arrived in the Russian kingdom with fire and sword were beaten and driven mercilessly along with their Horde allies.

The period of the XVIII-XIX centuries


The next period of large-scale wars, dating back to the XNUMXth century, to the “golden age of Catherine” was caused, in general, by the same contradictions: Russia sought to expand south, Turkey - to the north. The clash was inevitable also because all the previous time Istanbul was constantly trying to continue the same expansionist and aggressive policy aimed at establishing control over the territories of present-day Ukraine and Moldova, where the Turks were categorically not allowed. If only because they would not have stopped at these conquests, sooner or later trying to destroy the Russian state as such. It was perfectly clear that with such a "restless" neighbor, the issue needed to be resolved radically. What was done with brilliance by Minikh, Rumyantsev, Suvorov and other generals.

The Russo-Turkish wars of the 1828th century have a slightly different essence. It turned out that by this time the Russian Empire was on the rise, trying to occupy an increasingly significant place in European politics, the Ottoman Empire entered a period of apparent fading. It is impossible not to mention that a very considerable role in the frequency and severity of conflicts between countries was played by the fact that both of them not only had completely different state religions, but also positioned themselves as a bulwark of such at a regional level. The war of 1829-1877 was waged under the motto of the defense of Orthodoxy in the Caucasus, the campaign of 1878-35 was the salvation of our brothers in faith in Bulgaria, the battles were fought for the liberation of this country from the Ottoman yoke. As Bulgaria already behaved after 40-XNUMX years at the level of authorities in relation to the liberators, it is known ...

The Crimean War of 1853-1856 stands somewhat apart, during which Turkey, by which time it had already practically lost the status and ambitions of an independent geopolitical player, managed to defeat Russia, relying on the support of Western powers, frightened by the growth of influence and power of our country. The military operations of the Turkish troops against the imperial army during the First World War, however, can be attributed to the same category - except this time, the heavily shredding descendants of the Janissaries were again mercilessly beaten by our soldiers.

It just so happened that after more than a century, having passed since the last military clashes between Russia and Turkey, the likelihood of a military conflict between them again turned into a dangerous reality. At least there are forces in this world who would very much like to push Russia and Turkey against their foreheads again to weaken both one and the other. I would like to hope that both Moscow and Ankara are well aware of this, and conclusions have already been drawn.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / Russo-Turkish War 1877-1878
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Svarog
    Svarog 4 June 2020 16: 20 New
    18
    It just so happened that after more than a century, having passed since the last military clashes between Russia and Turkey, the likelihood of a military conflict between them again turned into a dangerous reality.

    Today the probability is not great. After the victory of the Second World War, the USSR became so advanced and powerful militarily that it reduced the likelihood of any attack, even the NATO bloc would not have saved Turkey .. But given the speed with which the country "rises from its knees" (meaning degradation), the likelihood of aggravation of relations with Turkey will increase, and not only with Turkey .. Nuclear weapons in Russia are now the only deterrent ..
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 4 June 2020 16: 34 New
      +7
      NF in Russia is now the only limiting factor ..

      This is not the only deterrent. Turkey does not have its own strategic aviation; electronic warfare systems, air defense systems, artillery and MLRS are poorly represented. Turkey seems to have armored vehicles and a fleet, but for the Russian Federation the threat from it is not great because of the presence of different-based anti-ship missiles and a whole bunch of anti-tank systems. The maximum (if Erdogan has a roof), the aggravation will result in a regional conflict.
      1. Hydrogen
        Hydrogen 4 June 2020 16: 42 New
        -8
        They don’t even need strategic aviation, and their fleet will be stronger than ours. They are in NATO and that’s it.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 4 June 2020 16: 50 New
          +9
          and their fleet will be stronger than ours

          Almost half of the used corvettes and frigates, submarines - a trifle of 1600 tons, the rest are also small frigates and corvettes. This is not a fleet to attack, it is a patrol and coastal. To jerk to the Crimea, half will go to the bottom even before they appear from behind the horizon.
          1. kjhg
            kjhg 4 June 2020 19: 07 New
            +3
            and their fleet will be stronger than ours
            Wedmak, if a colleague, instead all of our wrote against the Black Sea Fleetthen I would agree with him. To state this, you do not need to be a great expert. After all, the entire fleet of Turks is concentrated near Sevastopol. And our fleet is scattered in four fleets and one flotilla at a great distance from each other. This is a big minus for us.
            Quote: Wedmak
            To jerk to the Crimea, half will go to the bottom even before they appear from behind the horizon.

            In Crimea, they certainly do not jerk. This is complete suicide. But to block the straits and arrange the rout of our Syrian group, with the support of the states, it is quite able in the event of a serious batch. But even in this case, they will not be able to avoid retaliatory, precision missile and bomb attacks on airfields, large military installations and important administrative and political centers.
            Therefore, a major military conflict between Russia and Turkey is currently unlikely.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 5 June 2020 06: 09 New
                +2
                and they will certainly not miss such an opportunity.

                And what do you think they will do? Piled up with all 600 serviceable EU tanks? Throw bombs with the F-16? You forget one small detail: NATO is harnessed if a member country is attacked. And if the country itself climbs where it is not necessary, then they sit silently, express their condolences to the maximum. Turkey suffers losses in Syria and Libya, someone jerked to help her?
                And the entry into the war of such a country as the United States means developing into a nuclear warfare clearly. The Pentagon is not as mentally retarded as the White House and the US Senate, they understand how it can all end. In addition, the US in the EU does not have much military resources to help someone in the war, but rather it’s police overseers in Europe.
                1. Hydrogen
                  Hydrogen 5 June 2020 10: 21 New
                  -1
                  Syria, Libya, not a comparison. The USA arrives in Syria openly, like the Turks, in fact, NATO countries control part of Syria. NATO ruined Libya, and Turks will soon take control of the country, put a puppet, and this is a hat. In NATO, this they’ll take it calmly, without any indignation, it will suit them. Turkey’s losses in these wars are not critical, and much less Syrian, Kurdish. Many mercenaries, drones use it, competently work. But if the war starts with Russia, then there will be another fuss and NATO will certainly climb into this batch. Of course, the Sultan will not openly attack Russia, the conflict could erupt in Syria or Libya. Although it’s unlikely to go into a full-blown war. In the comments I just expressed my opinion on the case of the war between Turkey and Russia . Given the state of our army, navy and economy, Putin’s regime will lose this war.
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 5 June 2020 14: 52 New
                    +1
                    Given the state of our army, navy and economy, the Putin regime will lose this war.

                    I have a different opinion. Firstly, not the regime, and secondly, it will not lose. Either Turkey into dust, or the whole West into glass, somehow ... in parallel there will be .. whom to rub into atoms with a direct threat to the statehood of the Russian Federation.
                    1. Pilat2009
                      Pilat2009 8 June 2020 11: 57 New
                      0
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      Given the state of our army, navy and economy, the Putin regime will lose this war.

                      I have a different opinion. Firstly, not the regime, and secondly, it will not lose. Either Turkey into dust, or the whole West into glass, somehow ... in parallel there will be .. whom to rub into atoms with a direct threat to the statehood of the Russian Federation.

                      And there will be no threat to statehood. As it was in 1855. The conflict will be in Syria and Libya where it is difficult to maintain the group
          2. Sailor
            Sailor 5 June 2020 07: 55 New
            +2
            We should not underestimate the Turkish fleet, especially the submarines, there are more of them and some of them are quieter, we also have a lot of trash on the Black Sea Fleet, there are few naval aviation, the only thing we can cover is air defense and coastal missile forces.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 5 June 2020 14: 43 New
              +2
              The trash can and is full, but in defense only air defense and coastal capable of a lot of things. Lose dozens of ships, the ardor cools. Yes, more submarines, but no matter what they can against the coast? Naval aviation is easily replaced by the ground, the Black Sea is shot and flown through.
              And we have another article here: in case of a threat to the integrity of the Russian Federation, nuclear weapons can be used. In this case, tactical. What will all these submarines do if they are destroyed from the base and their command?
              And yet, let's end the discourse: we hope that the roof will not go to anyone and the next conquerors will not climb to us.
        2. mark2
          mark2 4 June 2020 18: 02 New
          +6
          NATO, NATO, NATO ... not tired? NATO has already shown its attitude towards the Turks. Europe did not accept the Turks into the union. She promised, but didn’t accept it and made it clear that they were not waiting for the Turks in the European Union. Patriots did not sell, F35 did not sell. Now they are considering how to replace Turkish components for miracle aircraft.
          All these European NATO allies are not worth the paper on which they are written.
          They can unite in real power under the fifth conqueror. As long as liberals and democrats are in power, everyone will only pull the blanket over themselves.
          1. Hydrogen
            Hydrogen 4 June 2020 21: 00 New
            -2
            Turkey will not be kicked out of the alliance, despite all the differences, it is a very important partner, from a geographical point of view. And the EU can ring anything, they do not decide.
          2. private person
            private person 5 June 2020 13: 31 New
            0
            NATO has already shown its attitude towards the Turks.

            Let me ask you how? So far, the Turks rule only the EU will say something, the Turks immediately promise to open the "gate" to millions of refugees.
      2. private person
        private person 5 June 2020 13: 27 New
        -1
        Turkey does not have its own strategic aviation; EW, SAM, artillery and MLRS are poorly represented

        All this will be supplied to them by the NATO allies, be sure of that.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 5 June 2020 14: 49 New
          0
          All this will be supplied by NATO "allies"

          Are you serious now ????? Yes??? That's right in all seriousness ??? laughing Will the USA give up its B-52X and B-1B? We are already silent about the Spiritualists ... Remember why Turkey bought the S-400? Because the USA marinated them for several years "we will sell the Patriots, we will not sell them." And apparently they did not even ask about powerful MLRS and electronic warfare.
          1. private person
            private person 5 June 2020 15: 20 New
            -2
            Are you serious now ????? Yes??? That's right in all seriousness ??? laughing will the US give their B-52X and B-1B?


            Quite seriously, because it will be so in cases of conflict. Amerekos will not just be handed over but sold, because it will hit Russia first of all. You look in Syria did the barmalei last such a time without help from outside? Why are the B-52X and B-1B Turks really bombers capable of carrying atomic weapons?
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 5 June 2020 15: 49 New
              +1
              Mmm ... how would you explain it again. IF Americans wanted to annoy the Russian Federation through Turkey, they would have sold the last Patriota without any problems, then there would have been no problems with the S-400 and already purchased F-35s in Turkey. This four would now be in Engerlic.
              In the event of war, the maximum that the US will give Turkey, in my opinion, is freshly printed money. On credit. And ammo. A lot of. Maybe the Javelins will even deliver. With payment of debt money.
              in Syria, did the barmalei last such a time without help from outside?

              It's right. But who opposed them? The Syrian army, battered by the war, the Assad government blocked on the material and economic sides, under US sanctions, with provocations from the USA, etc. Syria was overlaid in full, also sprinkled on top. And the goal was Syrian oil, which everyone who got to the wells and the Turks including was tyril!
              What does Turkey have to help the United States? The oil is there, as far as I remember the cat cried. Oranges, tomatoes and spas? No matter how vile it sounds ... Turks for the USA are just meat for provocation. But meat should be given just for survival. They will be thrown, using in full, as the Kurds.
              1. private person
                private person 6 June 2020 18: 54 New
                0
                But who opposed them? War-torn Syrian army

                So battered by the war with the barmales, sponsored by the US and the Turks.
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 8 June 2020 12: 01 New
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            All this will be supplied by NATO "allies"

            Are you serious now ????? Yes??? That's right in all seriousness ??? laughing Will the USA give up its B-52X and B-1B? We are already silent about the Spiritualists ... Remember why Turkey bought the S-400? Because the USA marinated them for several years "we will sell the Patriots, we will not sell them." And apparently they did not even ask about powerful MLRS and electronic warfare.

            Yes, the Turks do not need strategic aviation. All potential facilities are covered by missiles and f-16
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 8 June 2020 14: 20 New
              0
              What are these potential objects?
    2. Civil
      Civil 4 June 2020 17: 29 New
      +1
      1. Gentiles.
      2. Access to the Mediterranean Sea.
      3. Considered them weaker.
  2. Sklendarka
    Sklendarka 4 June 2020 16: 21 New
    +3
    ... hits, then loves ...
  3. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 4 June 2020 16: 23 New
    +4
    England is far away, Turkey is closer ...
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 4 June 2020 16: 28 New
    +3
    Because Russia was looking for access to the sea year-round, it was difficult to fight to the west and everything was already occupied and divided, and in the South it was possible to squeeze the Turks. The Turks were less then already skilful in military affairs than the Europeans lost.
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 4 June 2020 17: 01 New
      12
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Because Russia was looking for access to the sea year-round, it was difficult to fight to the West and everything was already occupied and divided, and in the South it was possible to squeeze the Turks.

      You are not confused by the fact that access to the Baltic (West yes ) Did Russia win from Sweden, the most powerful in all respects, "a little earlier" than access to the Black Sea in the South?
      1. Oleg Zorin
        Oleg Zorin 4 June 2020 18: 28 New
        0
        No, it shouldn't be embarrassing. Of course, Sweden at that time was a very serious enemy, but she had plenty of enemies. Therefore, the defeat of Sweden was quite suitable for the great (and small too) powers of that time. In general, a very peculiar mechanism of collective security developed in Europe in the 17-18 centuries. When the great powers united against any one that had pulled ahead too far and "lost its shores." This happened with Napoleonic France, then with Russia, then "pulled back" Bismarck after the Franco-Prussian war, which was victorious for him. Bismarck was a smart man, he knew when to stop.
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 04: 31 New
          0
          Quote: Oleg Zorin
          When the great powers united against any one that had pulled ahead too far and "lost its shores."
          Was England always on the coast?
          fool It was England that ruled over all wars and especially needed warriors, paid to the Swedes, for example, during attacks on Russia.
      2. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 5 June 2020 02: 39 New
        +1
        Well, actually, Russia did not fight alone against Sweden in the Northern War; an alliance from Russia, Poland, Saxony and Denmark fought against Sweden. If Russia fought against Sweden alone, then there could be no talk of victory, after the Narva disaster, Russia had no army left, and only because Sweden was distracted by Poland and Saxony, Russia had time to re-create its army , the good Charles XII fought in Poland and Saxony for a long 7 more years, and during this time Peter the Great managed to restore the Russian army.
      3. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 8 June 2020 12: 04 New
        -2
        Quote: Insurgent
        Quote: Zaurbek
        Because Russia was looking for access to the sea year-round, it was difficult to fight to the West and everything was already occupied and divided, and in the South it was possible to squeeze the Turks.

        You are not confused by the fact that access to the Baltic (West yes ) Did Russia win from Sweden, the most powerful in all respects, "a little earlier" than access to the Black Sea in the South?

        It doesn’t bother. There was still the Prut campaign of Tsar Peter. In the west there were 20-40 thousand armies. Turks surrounded Petr 100-150 thousand
  5. Crowe
    Crowe 4 June 2020 16: 38 New
    13
    Because these neighbors got it. And what do you want, and then it was necessary to endure their raids and our people were completely taken away? They beat the Turk, and they did it right, right and beautifully, as under Tendra and Sinop. That would be our political rulers now, and then with Erdogan they almost kiss each other, it's disgusting to look ..
  6. Pravodel
    Pravodel 4 June 2020 16: 46 New
    14
    Another version of either a homegrown political scientist or a journalist who has not studied the history of Russia.
    1. From the beginning of its existence, Russia was subjected to raids by Turkic peoples: Pechenegs, Polovtsy, constantly fought with them. Igor’s campaign is described in the Word about Igor’s regiment.
    2. The formation of a single state under the control of the Tatar-Mongols with the inclusion of Russia stopped the raids on the southern outskirts of Russia, because these outskirts just protected the Tatar-Mongols. By the way, in the XII-XIII century. there were no Tatars yet.
    3. With the collapse of the single state of the Golden Horde and the separation of individual fragments, raids against Russia resumed, so the Russian princes were constantly forced to defend their southern borders. With the rise of the Astrakhan and Crimean Khanates, raids into Russia became regular, which raised the issue of protecting the southern borders of Russia as one of the most important state tasks. In order to protect the southern borders, settlements were built, military settlements, on the basis of which the Cossacks subsequently stood out, whose task was precisely to ensure the protection of the southern borders of Russia, and subsequently Russia.
    4. The issue of protecting the southern borders of Russia was partially resolved by Ivan the Terrible, who took Kazaz and Astrakhan. But in the XV century. there was still not enough strength, so the Crimean Khanate remained, which continued to carry out constant raids on the southern borders of Russia and Russia.
    5. The issue with the southern borders was resolved under Catherine, who annexed Crimea to Russia. But this accession, in turn, brought Russia to the Caucasus, which led to a clash with the mountain tribes. To protect against the attack by the highlanders, Russia began to build military camps, which subsequently formed cities on the southern borders of Russia.
    6. The exit of Russia after the annexation of Crimea to the Black and Mediterranean Sea, as well as to the Caucasus, began to threaten the interests of the British and French: the Caucasus is the shortest route to Persia, where the British were then densely seated. To prevent Russia from entering Persia, the British provoked the assassination of Russian ambassador A. Griboedov. After this, relations between Russia and Persia were terminated for a long time - the British achieved their goal. Access to the Black and Mediterranean Sea and, further, to the Balkans threatened the British trade routes to India and the French to South-East Asia and China. From here, the British and French immediately took steps to limit Russia's expansion. Turkey was chosen as a weapon, especially since the annexation of Crimea to Russia directly affected its interests. Hence all subsequent wars between Russia and Turkey. In these wars, look for the trail of the Anglo-Saxons and French.
    1. Victorio
      Victorio 4 June 2020 19: 25 New
      -3
      Quote: The Truth
      Another version of either a homegrown political scientist or a journalist who has not studied the history of Russia.

      ===
      ) you can immediately see the opinion of an "authoritative" person

      Quote: The Truth
      4. The issue of protecting the southern borders of Russia was partially resolved by Ivan the Terrible, who took Kazaz and Astrakhan. But in the XV century. there was still not enough strength, so the Crimean Khanate remained, which continued to carry out constant raids on the southern borders of Russia and Russia.

      ===
      if astrakhan can still be somehow attributed to the southern borders, then it is problematic with Kazan

      Quote: The Truth
      5. The issue with the southern borders was resolved under Catherine, who annexed Crimea to Russia. But this accession, in turn, brought Russia to the Caucasus, which led to a clash with the mountain tribes. To protect against the attack by the highlanders, Russia began to build military camps, which subsequently formed cities on the southern borders of Russia.

      ===
      this happened much earlier, the first settlements of Cossacks in the Caucasus appeared as early as the 16th century (Tertsy and Combers), then there was a Russian distribution associated with Georgia, continued under Peter 1 and after, etc. Yes, and went on much later than Catherine
  7. Hydrogen
    Hydrogen 4 June 2020 16: 50 New
    -1
    The Turks were and will be our enemies. And the darkest in all reptiles before the Sultan, supplies weapons, this is not a strategy, but a natural betrayal.
  8. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 4 June 2020 16: 54 New
    +1
    Ivan the Terrible and his campaigns in Astrakhan with Kazan, why bother? The first direct clashes with the Turks at a stretch are the campaigns of V. Golitsyn in the Crimea (or rather to Perekop) under Princess Sophia. Very inglorious .. The Cossacks permanently fought with the Turks, allied .. The first in this business was Peter, with his sieges of Azov (not very glorious) and the completely infamous Prut campaign ... Minich also couldn’t really go around .. Well, then it started right up to the First World War - then the Turks basically certainly snatched it ... with nuances of course.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 4 June 2020 17: 11 New
      +6
      I wonder why the "allies" did not take the Dardanelles?
      And in Mesopotamia the British "snatched" from the Turks?
      Was the "dead Turkish LEV"? In 1914?
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 4 June 2020 18: 33 New
        +5
        Hi Aleksey. hi
        Was the "dead Turkish LEV"? In 1914?

        On the Black Sea, against ours, even the old pre-dreadnought fleet, he was clearly "dead", and when the "Empress" entered service it became completely nowhere.
        What do you think, what were our "valiant" allies guided by by allowing "Goeben" and "Breslau" to slip into the Bosphorus. I believe that Lavrenev had every right to write his story "Strategic mistake".
        And this "mistake" cost the allies the inglorious battles in Gallipoli and the loss of ships and people in an attempt to break through to Constantinople. And here the Turks turned out to be sufficient "lions" to resist the entire Entente.
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 04: 14 New
          +1
          Quote: Sea Cat
          And this "mistake" cost the allies the inglorious battles in Gallipoli and the loss of ships and people in an attempt to break through to Constantinople. And here the Turks turned out to be sufficient "lions" to resist the entire Entente.

          Everything was confused. How did Goeben strengthen Gallipoli? But he allowed the impudent people to keep us away from Constantinople. request Alas, they did everything right, albeit insulting to us. So we lived on for over 100 years with a bottleneck.
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 5 June 2020 14: 12 New
            -1
            But there is another "option": "Goeben" slipped into the Bosphorus, did not capture the Entente Straits, Russia could not receive proper military assistance and suffered defeats on the Western Front, as a result the February Revolution was formed, then, against the background of a general mess from somewhere The Bolsheviks emerged and the entire Western world got what it had never expected - the USSR. Think about it later if it was worth it. A double-edged sword turns out.
            In general, I believe that the Soviet government should have bought the Geben from the Turks and put it next to the Aurora. (joke). wink
            1. Mavrikiy
              Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 14: 23 New
              -1
              Quote: Sea Cat
              Russia could not receive proper military assistance and suffered defeats on the Western Front.
              but couldn’t eat the west, just to help us? Well, you give.
              as a result of the February Revolution,
              organized by England
              then, against the backdrop of a general mess, the Bolsheviks emerged from somewhere
              About the sealed car you are not in the subject, of course.
              and the whole Western world received what the Soviet Union did not count on at all.
              When sending the Bolsheviks to Russia, the West knew firmly that RI would not be exactly what was required. But the Soviet Union was supposed to, but it’s going to turn into where it is ..... I had to wait another 100 years ....
              So think later, but was it worth it. A double-edged sword is obtained.
              Well, it’s only fool It all depends on the level of analysis and planning.
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 5 June 2020 14: 28 New
                0
                . And the USSR was supposed to

                The Soviet Union - IT, masculine, and the middle gender - IT, guessed what exactly?
                So twist yourself at the temple, a great connoisseur of "analysis and planning." fool laughing
              2. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 5 June 2020 14: 36 New
                0
                Quote: Mavrikiy
                organized by England

                Pavlik I tapped the top of my head. Snuffbox.
                Quote: Mavrikiy
                About the sealed car you are not in the subject, of course.

                No, not in the subject. Lenin gave Petersburg to the Germans, and urgently moved to Moscow.
                Quote: Mavrikiy
                When sending the Bolsheviks to Russia, the West knew firmly that RI would not be exactly what was required.

                fool
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 5 June 2020 07: 59 New
          +1
          However, the fleet could not destroy the coal area of ​​Zunguldak! They refused the landing. And while they spent resources on the blockade of Zunguldak! And the race for wooden schooners carrying coal. Routine taking away forces and resources ...
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 04: 18 New
        0
        Quote: hohol95
        Was the "dead Turkish LEV"? In 1914?

        Was the mighty lion successful in the Caucasus? And what was cut off from the mighty after WWII? It was simply cut into pieces, the powerful do not allow themselves to do this.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 5 June 2020 07: 57 New
          +2
          Was the mighty lion successful in the Caucasus?

          "Miracle heroes" were successful against the Germans? Weighty?
          The war was not only in the Caucasus!
          The coal area of ​​Zunguldak could only be blocked.
          They abandoned the landing ...
          The Turkish front absorbed the resources needed against the German with the Austrian! For this, the German put the Turk under the Entente! Pulling the resources needed for a war in Europe ...
  9. Break through
    Break through 4 June 2020 17: 21 New
    -9
    It is better for the Turks not to quarrel with the bear. Otherwise, the 20th time they will receive on the head.
    1. Kronos
      Kronos 4 June 2020 23: 46 New
      -4
      Several Russian Turkish wars Turks won
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 04: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: Kronos
        Several Russian Turkish wars Turks won

        Sounds much, but in fact Turkish zilch ... request
      2. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 5 June 2020 14: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Kronos
        Several Russian Turkish wars Turks won

        Which can you tell?
        1. Kronos
          Kronos 5 June 2020 15: 01 New
          -1
          Prut campaign of Peter 1 for example, the Crimean campaign of Galitsin
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 5 June 2020 15: 08 New
            0
            Quote: Kronos
            Prut campaign of Peter 1 for example, the Crimean campaign of Galitsin

            1. Kronos
              Kronos 5 June 2020 15: 14 New
              -1
              Why do I need quotes from Wikipedia?
              1. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 5 June 2020 15: 17 New
                0
                Quote: Kronos
                Why do I need quotes from Wikipedia?

                Good. Let’s remember Suvorov.
  10. Operator
    Operator 4 June 2020 17: 23 New
    -6
    Russia has never fought with Turkey, all of a sudden.

    Russia fought exclusively with the Ottoman Empire, whose borders began in the Atlas Mountains on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, the Balkans and the Black Sea region and ended in Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula on the shores of the Indian Ocean.

    As soon as the Ottoman Empire shrunk to Turkey in 1918, so immediately Russia stopped fighting it. Especially now the war between the leading nuclear power of Russia and the trifle pot-bellied Turkey, if possible, is only within an hour - before the glazing of the Anatolian Peninsula, together with the Turks.
    1. Cristall
      Cristall 6 June 2020 21: 16 New
      -1
      Quote: Operator
      Russia fought exclusively with the Ottoman Empire

      in fact, at that time Russia did not fight the Ottoman Empire at all. Officially.
      Russian state (1478-1721)
      Russian kingdom (1547-1721)
      Russian Empire (1721-1917)
      1. Operator
        Operator 6 June 2020 22: 50 New
        0
        Cristall
        By your logic, Russia still hasn’t appeared - the Russian Federation laughing
        1. Cristall
          Cristall 7 June 2020 08: 40 New
          -1
          Quote: Operator
          By your logic, Russia still hasn’t appeared - the Russian Federation

          informally they called Russia a long time ago
          But I was not the first to start this logic.
          OI also called Turkey and BP.
  11. knn54
    knn54 4 June 2020 17: 32 New
    +4
    -There are forces in this world who would very much like to push Russia and Turkey against their foreheads again.
    Poland, Austria, the Vatican with Venice and then with Sardinia, France, England have exhausted the limit of conflicts with Russia and clashed both states.
    Aplomb of the rulers of both countries and Anglophile diplomacy also contributed.
    Then the Germans connected.
    Today the USA and Israel. Greece is not against.
    I would also like to recall about 100000 Russian soldiers who died so that Bulgaria would become an ally of first Kaiser and then Hitler Germany.
  12. parusnik
    parusnik 4 June 2020 18: 03 New
    +5
    Our tourists will not allow war with Turkey smile
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 04: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      Our tourists will not allow war with Turkey smile

      I would be to our tourists fool angry That would not be confused underfoot.
  13. Shahno
    Shahno 4 June 2020 18: 04 New
    -2
    Turks? They are lucky that there are many of them ...
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 04: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: Shahno
      Turks? They are lucky that there are many of them ...

      Not certainly in that way. Southerners have always been many. Just cut among themselves. Whoever first created the central government is on horseback. The micro kingdom is always an object, not a subject. Only the world could oppose the Turks. request And we were also often played, connected ..... request
      Gumilev - the influence of climate and landscape on the ethnic group. Heat, productivity, fertility. Tribute to children from the conquered territories - Janissaries.
  14. Oleg Zorin
    Oleg Zorin 4 June 2020 18: 12 New
    +2
    Another political information in the 9th grade. I'm about material level
  15. Maks1995
    Maks1995 4 June 2020 20: 43 New
    0
    In general, I read about the calculations that most often fought with Sweden - 14 times. And the Turks only in 2nd place - 12 times, and shorter wars.
    And the reasons are clear - the authorities, the authorities grab more. "What prevented the two states from living in peace and harmony?" - naive.

    And now everyone wants power, money, influence and oil .... and attach their weapons ...
    1. Seal
      Seal 5 June 2020 13: 40 New
      -2
      The largest number of wars we had with the Lithuanians. It is difficult even to count them. Indeed, according to the traditional (official) version of history, it was Lithuania that seized about two-thirds of the lands of our first state, called by historians "Kievan Rus". Considering that in some periods there were almost annual campaigns of Lithuania to our lands and the capture of our cities by the Lithuanians (however, they also had unsuccessful campaigns - we sometimes snapped back hard), as well as the fact that the campaigns were often not connected with each other and were carried out by different Lithuanian princes, then the number of wars with Lithuania (in general with the Lithuanians) we had over 30.
      Then there are wars with the Poles. There are about 20 wars. By the way. With Poland, the longest period of the state of war is more than 100 years.
      Then there are wars with the Swedes - 18 wars.
      And with Turkey there are only 12 wars.
      Moreover, the very first Turkish-Russian war, even by the standards of modern international law, was legal. Since we took and annexed to our country Astrakhan, which had never belonged to us before. The family of the Astrakhan khans ran to Constantinople and fell at the feet of the Sultan. And it should be noted that the Turkish Sultans since the time of Selim Yavuz, so to speak, also worked part-time with the Caliphs. And the Caliph is obliged to protect all the faithful. Here is the Sultan-Khalifa and sent an army to "restore justice." But luck was not on his side. And Astrakhan is still ours.

      Actually, the other two Turkish-Russian wars, initiated by the Turks themselves, were their attempts to at least slightly repel what the Turks lost in the previous Russian-Turkish war.

      Note. Turkish-Russian war - war initiated by the Turks

      The Russian-Turkish war is the war initiated by us.
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 June 2020 14: 02 New
        -4
        No need to lie: we simply forced all sorts of Tatar khanates to peace (refusal of raids) - by erasing them in dust, but the Tatars knew about this in advance (from the Khazars erased by Svyatoslav Igorevich).

        So the place for you is the Turks - sixth bully
      2. +5
        +5 5 June 2020 16: 09 New
        0
        We did not fight with any "Lithuanians" (in the modern sense) ... there were Lithuanians .... the essence is also Russian, there were 2 Russian states of the VKM and ON ... princes, incl. and Rurikovichi, incl. they went back and forth with the lands like fishing ... and states and nationalities in the modern sense appeared already when the ON ended under fires
        1. Seal
          Seal 8 June 2020 12: 35 New
          0
          In ON - Gediminovichi. Some "Rurikovichs" in the GDL appeared after the GDL seized the lands of the former Kievan Rus.
          And the ON began to fight with us even without being ON. Comrade Mindovg, as historians say, was certainly neither Rurikovich nor Gemidivich.
      3. Maks1995
        Maks1995 5 June 2020 16: 54 New
        +1
        Lithuania was not considered. Since there are still principalities. And the principalities were biting every year. Crimean, Kazan, Lithuanian, Pskov and other raids ... but who considered them to the end.

        Poles - Maybe. In that article they were assigned the third place.

        The usual historical process. You read about some kind of Denmark or Sweden - always fight with someone too.
    2. Cristall
      Cristall 6 June 2020 21: 22 New
      -1
      Quote: Max1995
      In general, I read about the calculations that most often fought with Sweden - 14 times. And the Turks only in 2nd place - 12 times, and shorter wars.

      if we take existing states
      Turkey takes the first place in the number of clashes. Between us there were 12 wars.
      18 clashes took place between Russia and Sweden, if you start the countdown with the Swedish Crusades, and 10, if you count the direct clashes of the two countries since the formation of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. (Novgorod and pr do not take)
      Poland-10 times
      France 4 war
      Germany 3 war
      Japan 4 times
      And with Lithuanians, Russian principalities (Tver for example) a lot. Until swallowed.
      1. Seal
        Seal 8 June 2020 12: 46 New
        0
        The Grand Duchy of Moscow. (Novgorod and pr do not take)
        Why? Didn’t Russian people live in Novgorod?
        But even if you take it according to your method.
        Add Poland their three revolts, which will be larger in scale than our separate wars with Turkey, as well as our liberation campaign in Poland in September 1939. For the past 14 wars.
        And if you add the participation of the troops of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw in Napoleon’s campaign against us in 1812, then there are already 15 wars.
        By duration, the longest are not Russian-Ottoman, but Russian-Polish wars. In total, we fought with the Poles for over 100 years.
        The bloodiest are the Russian-German wars. In total, the Germans accounted for two world wars - over 30 million lives of our compatriots.
        The Ottomans never made us such tricks as:
        - Swedes after the miserable battle for us at Fraustadt, held on February 2, 1706 (Julian calendar); February 3, 1706 (Swedish calendar); February 13, 1706 (Gregorian calendar) when the victorious Swedes stabbed 4 of our prisoners with cold steel.
        “In the battle of Fraustadt, the incomprehensible, truly bestial cruelty of the Swedes was revealed against the Russians. Indeed, in this combined army of the Saxon General Schulenburg, which suffered such a defeat, there were Saxons, and Poles, and even the French who served in the Saxon army, and, finally, Russians. After its victory (February 3, 1706), the Swedish army took prisoners all who were not killed and did not have time to escape. Everyone except Russians! "The Russians are also beaten many, and which of the soldiers were taken to the full, and the enemy very mercilessly acted with those, according to the royal decree issued about them before, so that they do not give pardon (or mercy), and rudely put a person in 2 and 3 They stabbed one another with spears and baguettes (bayonets. - ET). In this barbaric way the Swedes exterminated 4 thousand disarmed Russian prisoners after the battle. "

        E. V. Tarle, "The Northern War and the Swedish Invasion of Russia";

        - Germans who attacked us without declaring war on 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX at 03:20 (plus or minus 10 minutes)

        The Ottomans, if they themselves started, first, by all the rules, declared war on us, and hostilities began somewhere half a year after the announcement. And even later.

        - Poles who literally crap Kremlin churches.
        - the French who plundered Moscow.
        - about the atrocities of the Germans that during the First World War (poisonous gases), that during the Great Patriotic War I don’t even speak.
        So why are the Ottomans worse than the Swedes, Poles or Germans?
        With the Ottomans, you waged war either on the very very borders of our state, or, much more often, on Turkish territory. The Ottomans themselves did not come close to any of our more or less decent cities.
  16. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 03: 50 New
    -1
    The Crimean War of 1853-1856 stands somewhat apart, during which Turkey, by which time had already practically lost the status and ambitions of an independent geopolitical player, managed to defeat Russia,
    fool fool Does the author mean Kars? Which we were forced to cede to the Turks? repeat request
  17. Per se.
    Per se. 5 June 2020 07: 17 New
    0
    The Crimean War of 1853-1856 stands somewhat apart
    Not such a big "mansion" after Sinop. The main thing that was not reflected in the article is the dastardly role of the Anglo-Saxons in training and inciting Turkey against Russia, feeding high-ranking admirers of England in Russia itself. We must also remember about the nest of the Rothschild ghouls, who were in no small measure interested in the Crimean War.
    1. Seal
      Seal 8 June 2020 10: 52 New
      +1
      Not such a big "mansion" after SinopThe main thing that was not reflected in the article is the vile role of the Anglo-Saxons in training and insisting on Turkey against Russia, feeding high-ranking admirers of England in Russia itself.
      There, the French tried more. The question was what? It is for the Sultan to grant the Orthodox more privileges in Holy places than Catholics. But the British are neither Orthodox nor Catholic.
      Interesting, actually. Instead of Catholics and Orthodox Christians sitting at the negotiating table and as it should be for Christians, peacefully, in all concessions to each other, they would decide who would block the roof of the temple in Bethlehem and other purely church issues, the Orthodox and Catholics gave their dispute about the primacy for resolution to the Sultan of Turkey.
      And our Nicholas I, so that the Sultan could think better, sent troops to the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which were under Turkish jurisdiction. That gave a reason for the war.
  18. Maksim
    Maksim 5 June 2020 13: 18 New
    0
    As Bulgaria already behaved after 35-40 years at the level of authorities in relation to the liberators, it is known ...


    Called a cargo - go into the back. And tell us how Russia behaved only 7 years after the liberation. It will be interesting for me to look at your historical tricks.
    We would have written honestly - we perled to the Second Eye, and here some Aboriginal people turned out to be suitable. They did not want to become the Transdanubian province - well ... with them. We had more important things to do. And everything would be clearer and more historic. And so - whistles.
  19. Maksim
    Maksim 5 June 2020 13: 22 New
    -1
    Quote: knn54

    I would also like to recall about 100000 Russian soldiers who died so that Bulgaria would become an ally of first Kaiser and then Hitler Germany.

    I would also like to recall the coups in Bulgaria and the non-hostility of the policy of the Republic of Ingushetia to all kinds of Kaisers and Fuhrer.
  20. Seal
    Seal 5 June 2020 13: 33 New
    -1
    Quote: Insurgent
    Are you not embarrassed by the fact that Russia won access to the Baltic (West yes) from Sweden, the most powerful in all respects, "a little earlier" than access to the Black Sea in the South?

    In general, at first there was the Battle of Poltava, after which Charles 12 fled to Turkey, and then, when Peter went to fight the Turks, there was an encirclement of our troops led by the king and his court in Moldova.
    Just the design of the fruits of the Poltava battle dragged on until 1721.
  21. Seal
    Seal 5 June 2020 13: 49 New
    -1
    Quote: The Truth
    Another version of either a homegrown political scientist or a journalist who has not studied the history of Russia.
    1. From the beginning of its existence, Russia was subjected to raids by Turkic peoples: Pechenegs, Polovtsy, constantly fought with them. Igor’s campaign is described in the Word about Igor’s regiment.

    "How Prophetic Oleg is being gathered now
    Revenge the foolish Khazars
    Their sat и cornfields for violent raid
    He condemned to swords and fires "

    So whose was (or was not) a raid?

    And a little is believed from the patriarch Photius.
    What is it? What an oppressive and heavy blow and anger? Where did this terrible Thunderborean storm come upon us? What kind of thickened clouds of sorrows, of which condemnation of harsh gnashing uttered this unbearable lightning on us? ...
    about reality itself escaped with the news - and this while attacking from there, from where [we] are separated by so many lands and tribal possessions, navigable rivers and seas without marinas ...
    Woe to me that I see a cruel and wild people encircling the city with impunity and plundering the suburbs, destroying everything, destroying everything - fields, dwellings, herds, cattle, wives, children, old people, youths - all betraying the sword, not listening to any cries, sparing no one . The death is universal! Like locusts on a cornfield and like rust on a vineyard, more precisely - like a whirlwind, or a storm, or a hurricane, or I don’t know what else, having collapsed on our land, he ruined entire generations of inhabitants.
    Where is now Vasileus Christ-loving? Where are the troops? Where are the weapons, [defensive] cars, general advice and preparations? Was it not the invasion of the other barbarians that carried and diverted all this? And Vasilevs endures distant labors beyond the borders of the [empire], the army went with him and shares the hardships - but we are exhausted by the disastrous murder, which, before our eyes, has overtaken some and is already overtaking others. This Scythian people, cruel and barbaric, crawling out of the very anticipations of the city, as if a wild beast had eaten around its surroundings. Who will fight for us? Who will oppose the enemies? We are deprived of everything, helpless on all sides.
    This is Photius about whom?
  22. iouris
    iouris 5 June 2020 13: 55 New
    0
    The Russian Federation did not fight with anyone. What was before the year 91 is generally deprecated.
  23. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 5 June 2020 16: 13 New
    0
    The author’s rich surname blows with historicism, recalls the instrument that made Russia possible)
    I am very sorry ... In general, an ordinary article by a historian. Powerful ... but not even half a meter past, but in general a shot in the wrong steppe. Why Russia, and then Russia all the time fought with Turkey? The thing, of course, is in transport infrastructure! What else is there?
    A country exists as long as traffic flows through its territory. The flows of goods and people solving the economic problems of the country. Therefore, marine economies always have a huge advantage - immeasurably more goods can be transported on the poorest ship than on the most luxurious cart).
    But Russia is a continental country. Therefore, our economy has developed along rivers. First, a peasant takes five bags of wheat to the nearest rivulet. Then the bags are reloaded onto the plank bed, and now there are fifty of them. Then on a plow in a larger river, and there are already more than a thousand bags ... The traffic flows of Russia resembled trees, where the trunks are large rivers - the Volga, Don, Dnieper, etc. further north.
    And in place of the root, so to speak? And on the former Russian Sea there was a gag - Turkey! Across the Black Sea, our goods should be poured into the Mediterranean in a powerful stream, where they diverge along the coasts, contributing to universal development ... However, the Turks either blocked export and import altogether, or degreased it with customs. This situation strangled our country as an iron noose.
    Well, the Turks, seeing wealth swirling on the border, simply wanted to grab it in their hand. Take away. Turn into yours, together with the land and people that produce it. So they themselves, and through the Tatar freemen, who were tightly controlled, attacked all the time, pursuing their goals. And we attacked, pursuing our own ... Nothing that the author calls the causes of the Russian-Turkish wars has absolutely no meaning.
    1. iouris
      iouris 5 June 2020 16: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Through the Black Sea, our goods should be poured into the Mediterranean in a powerful stream

      To today, this is not related. Turkey is no longer that, and Russia. And with the goods ... In general, there is no relevance. What are we going to do?
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 8 June 2020 09: 15 New
        0
        With what? The article raised a question. To the best of their ability and mind, people give answers. What are you talking about? What to do to solve all world problems in one post? Well, I don’t know directly ...
  24. svoit
    svoit 5 June 2020 19: 10 New
    0
    Quote: knn54
    -There are forces in this world who would very much like to push Russia and Turkey against their foreheads again.

    Unfortunately, this is so, and the goals will be rather local - moral, political and economic weakening, the rejection of very conditional allies, the deployment of NATO and US peacekeeping forces nearby. To this we add the evacuation of our contingent from Syria, the revision of the doctrine on the straits, and this is a minimum task, the United States and NATO, of course, will not be directly involved, but they will provide military and political support to Turkey. Nobody is interested in a big war, but it would be very nice to check the tactics and strategy of the United States. Under the guise of NATO, it will deploy its armed forces in Ukraine and Georgia, for protection, of course. The fighting will be local, mainly in Syria and the Black Sea, perhaps 10-20 ships will be sunk on both sides (and the same number damaged) and up to 100 aircraft destroyed. Probably, objects in the Crimea and on the Turkish coast will suffer. The times when territories were seized have already passed, now it is important to control resources, and for this it is enough to put a "democratic" government in power and provide it with all possible assistance (in the "development of democracy" of course). If everything goes far and Russia does not immediately agree to the "peacekeeping mediation" of the "world community", then plan "B" can be implemented, already with the involvement of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, which will try to establish control over the DPR, LPR, PMR, Abkhazia with South Ossetia. where after the peacekeeping forces will be introduced (maybe even without the United States), and later possibly Poland (to establish control over the Kaliningrad region) and Japan (it may not be limited to the 2nd islands), but this will not be done by capture, but through an imposed "voluntary" transfer for the sake of restoring "historical justice".
    1. iouris
      iouris 6 June 2020 14: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: svoit
      by imposed "voluntary" transmission for the restoration of "historical justice".

      Exactly. Everything points to the victory of the "liberals", and these are the same Bandera.
  25. Cristall
    Cristall 6 June 2020 22: 14 New
    +1
    Why is it here?
    However, it is necessary to pay tribute to historical justice - the first is the Turkish side, the first aggressive actions and campaigns on clearly foreign territory began in the seventeenth century. In Istanbul, they sought to "take under the wing" the remains of the broken Golden Horde - Kazan, Astrakhan, and later the Crimean Khanate.

    All states are aggressively expanding during their heyday. Be it OI, RC / RI, AI, China, USA and others.
    The concept of justice is absent. Only interests. But for domestic consumption, of course, everyone will maintain justice only regarding their state (all wars / behavior / actions). Aliens will be judged.
    A strange article in terms of why Russia waged wars with Turkey?
    And what with Poland did not lead?
    With Sweden / Prussia / France?
    Why does humanity wage war? Why are states waging war?
    Or are the reasons for Russian-Turkish - some other from human?
    Yes, the same as everyone else.
    State interests. And accordingly, during the heyday of the OI, the RC itself was rather weak for a worthy rival and the OI had no problems with its "neighbors" in the form of the RC. OI tore up weak countries.
    But the heyday of the Republic of Ingushetia and the decline of the OI, the situation has fundamentally changed, and weakened OI were torn apart by everyone.
    Some territories passed from hand to hand many times. It all depends on the power that is able to hold.
    And the need for access to non-freezing ports for RC / RI has always been relevant. The continental climate is simply forcing aggressively to fight for the necessary territory.
  26. Operator
    Operator 6 June 2020 23: 38 New
    0
    Quote: iogseb
    Russia (Russian Empire) arose in 1654.

    For the first time, the title of Lord and Grand Duke of All Russia was taken by Dmitry Yuryevich Shemyaka, who headed the state from 1447 to 1448. After him, the title "sovereign / sovereign" was borne by all heads of state, including Basil II, Basil III and John IV.

    The additional title "tsar" (from the Latin "caesar") was assumed by Ivan III - the title sounded like the Sovereign of all Rus lands, Tsar of all Russia; starting with John IV - Sovereign and Tsar of All Russia.

    Russia began to be officially titled by Russia according to the Latin model (respectively, Russian, Russian, Russian) during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov.

    Starting with Peter the Great, the beginning of the title sounded like the All-Russian Emperor, beginning with Nicholas I as the All-Russian Emperor, Tsar of Poland (Nicholas was officially elected by the Sejm as the head of the Commonwealth) and the Grand Duke of Finland (in connection with the autonomy of the principality within the Russian Empire).

    Nicholas II identified himself as the owner (ruler in Slavic) of the Russian Land when filling out the questionnaire for the All-Russian Census.
  27. Tuzik
    Tuzik 7 June 2020 01: 46 New
    -1
    It’s interesting, but in general, which country comes first in the wars in history that mankind knows? Has anyone counted this?
    1. Cristall
      Cristall 7 June 2020 08: 45 New
      -1
      Quote: Tuzik
      which country comes first in the wars in history that mankind knows

      The one whose statehood is longer (and it still exists)
      Egypt.
      1. Tuzik
        Tuzik 7 June 2020 08: 49 New
        -1
        Is this a logical guess or an exact calculation?
        1. Cristall
          Cristall 7 June 2020 22: 18 New
          -1
          Quote: Tuzik
          Is this a logical guess or an exact calculation?

          I don’t have a time machine.
          I can’t attach video and photo fixation.
          Logical assumption
  28. Operator
    Operator 7 June 2020 14: 55 New
    +1
    Quote: divansin
    Quote: Operator
    For the first time, the title Ruler and Grand Duke of All Russia was adopted by Dmitry Yuryevich Shemyaka, who headed the state from 1447 to 1448.

    1. What did All Russia have to do with Russia?
    2. Titles are sometimes just wishes about something. And the facts are often different. So it was with the title "... of All Russia" until 1654.

    There is no other source for the title of the state (in the modern form factor) than the title of its autocratic head.

    Russia (short for Ruska Zemlya, synonymous with the Rus tribe) is the name of the state since the reign of Rurik, the leader of the Rus tribe, of course. Geographically and ethnically, the Russian Land since the reign of Igor Rurikovich coincides with the western regions of the Old Russian State, the Kingdom of the Russian, Russian Empire and the RSFSR of November 1920, all of a sudden.

    Russia is a lithanized name for Rus, introduced under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (just as under Peter I, the Latin title "emperor" was introduced instead of the Slavic "sovereign").
  29. Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 8 June 2020 12: 08 New
    +1
    Quote: hohol95
    I wonder why the "allies" did not take the Dardanelles?
    And in Mesopotamia the British "snatched" from the Turks?
    Was the "dead Turkish LEV"? In 1914?

    Well, the Turks did well with the troops, Kemal defended the Dardanelles normally. Here Enver’s raid looks like an adventure
  30. Seal
    Seal 8 June 2020 12: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    Russia began to be officially titled by Russia according to the Latin model (respectively, Russian, Russian, Russian) during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov.
    Hmm ... ???? That is, in the West we began to be titled ROSSIA when we ourselves did not know that we were ROSSIA ???
  31. Seal
    Seal 8 June 2020 13: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Cristall
    And accordingly, during the heyday of the OI, the RC itself was rather weak for a worthy rival and the OI had no problems with its "neighbors" in the form of the RC. OI tore up weak countries.
    Hungary was by no means a weak state. But on August 29, 1526, at the battle of Mohach, the 50th army of the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman I, led by the great Vizier Ibrahim Pasha, inflicted a brutal defeat on the 25th Hungarian army.
    And before that, the Turks successfully coped with the Crusades.
    Nikopol 1396.
    The number of opponents is contradictory. While medieval authors claim that 70 thousand knights (Hungarians, French, British, Germans, Italians and Czechs) participated in the battle against the 200 thousandth Turkish army, according to modern data, the balance of forces looked like about 16 thousand crusaders against 17 thousand Ottomans (along with the Serbs of Stefan Lazarevich).
    From the side of the French kingdom, about 2000 knights and servants took part in the battle, with the support of 6000 riflemen and foot soldiers. The leading role in preparing the campaign was played by Burgundy - one of the most powerful European duchies. The core of the Burgundian army was a detachment of heavily armed knights, capable of fighting both dismounted and on horseback. A significant part of it (13,6%) was composed of units of archers and arbalester. Burgundians also possessed artillery developed at that time, represented by wrought iron bombers, firing stone cores and buckshot (see miniature from the Froissart manuscript above). As a transport, the Burgundy army was accompanied by many wagon-wagons with numerous servants. The morale of the Franco-Burgundian contingent, which constituted the largest part of the combined forces of the crusaders, was very high, largely due to the fact that the knights considered it an honor to take part in such a responsible and sacred event as the crusade. Their hostility towards the Greek "schismatics" and Muslims was well known, and this also played a role in the upcoming battle.
    The German contingent also for the most part consisted of heavily armed knightly cavalry, whose military organization replicated the French. The most fanatical supporters of the upcoming campaign were the Knights Hospitallers, who constituted a significant force in the alliance forces.

    The Hungarian army consisted mainly of heavily armed units of Hungarian feudal lords, organized according to the Western European model, but it was accompanied by numerous light cavalry, a large part of which were horse archers, as well as militias from various tribes and clans of Transylvania and the South Slavic provinces.
    The Wallachians, who were considered the best warriors of the Balkan Peninsula at that time, were mainly allied horse archers.
    The crusader forces also had an almost complete advantage at sea thanks to the help of the allies of Venice and Genoa.
    Nevertheless, the result is known.

    Battle of Varna on November 10, 1444
    The Crusader Army consisted of:
    - The Kingdom of Hungary, Croatia, Poland, Bohemia;
    - Principality - Great Lithuanian, Wallachia;
    - Serbian Despotovina;
    - Papal region;
    - The Republic of Venice;
    - Holy Roman Empire;
    - Bulgarian rebels;
    - Warband.
    The result is the same.
    That is, the Ottomans at the dawn of the formation of their state successfully coped with the forces of a united Europe.
    1. Liam
      Liam 8 June 2020 13: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: Seal
      The number of opponents is contradictory. While medieval authors claim that 70 thousand knights (Hungarians, French, British, Germans, Italians and Czechs) participated in the battle against the 200 thousandth Turkish army, according to modern data, the balance of forces looked like about 16 thousand crusaders against 17 thousand Ottomans

      Absolute numbers are unknown and vary by orders of magnitude.
      BUT:
      Quote: Seal
      A significant part (13,6%) were units of archers and arbalester

      But here the share of archers is calculated up to tens of percent)
  32. lubesky
    lubesky 9 June 2020 00: 32 New
    +1
    A moment of military pressure on Russia by such a player as Turkey was missed in August 2008. The point of no return - Russia was in the potential for such challenges. So we will be reeling by a hybrid and a buildup along the borders, by fires in the former allies. Central Asia, they will try to develop a conflict of interests with the Chinese over Kazakhstan. Ukraine is increasingly not suitable for meat. Dill won back and went into circulation. But stubborn Islamism in Wed Asia - the theme is run-in and tested
  33. Selevc
    Selevc 11 June 2020 11: 21 New
    0
    The article is interesting but superficial. The author has missed the very central era of the Russo-Turkish confrontation - the whole XVII century ... And this period is precisely the era of intense struggle ... The era when Turkey and the Tatar Khanate were still strong and Russia was on the rise but still weak and squeezed aggressors from its historical territories by building fortified lines on its southern borders ... Many cities are large today such as Kursk, Oryol, Sumy, Belgorod, Kharkov were founded or restored as fortified cities in that difficult era ...

    Defensive lines on the southern borders were created from chains of small fortresses-settlements ... These lines were created as obstacle lines and warnings when the Tatars invaded Moscow .. Therefore, the vast territory of southern Russia of those times - including modern parts of the Belgorod, Sumy, Kharkov and Kursk regions historical name Slobozhanshchina ...

    I want to note the same that Turkey and the Crimean Khanate created an extensive network of slave trade on the southern borders of Russia ... Horseback hordes regularly devastated vast territories from the Dnieper to the Volga - the Slavic population was exterminated and taken to Kafa and other cities of the Tatar Crimea ... And from there by white slaves and slaves were traded throughout Europe, and Muslim Asia and Africa. So in the heyday of the Italian city-states of Venice, Florence, Padua, Genoa, in the neighborhood of the Jesuit Inquisition, white slavery from eastern Europe quite peacefully flourished. There were many slaves and slaves - in some regions of Italy about 10% of the population ...
    Modern European historians, apologists for democracy do not like to remember this dark page in the history of Europe ... And they are much more willing to tell you about the struggle of black slaves in the USA in the 19th century than about the slave owners of Venice and Genoa of the Da Vinci era ...
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 11 June 2020 12: 08 New
      0
      In the history of Russia, in my opinion, entire pages are set out fundamentally incorrectly - let's say not patriotic! Take, for example, the era of Ivan the Terrible ... Historians traditionally consider this period of Russian history from the point of view of condemning the repressions of the tsar ... But if we look at Russia from that time from the outside, we will see a state in the ring of enemies !!! From the west, Poles and Swedes, from the south-west Tatars and Turks, from the southeast Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates ... The capture of Kazan and Astrakhan Grozny was Russia's breakthrough of the outer circle ... And by the way, the victory of Christians over Muslim expansion in Eastern Europe !!! This is a great victory of the highest level - the level of lifting the Turkish siege from Vienna in that era !!!

      Further, Professor Gerasimov, exploring the remains of Grozny, found in them exorbitant indicators for the content of arsenic and mercury - this was then explained as if it was fashionable hobby for alchemy in that era ... But this is complete nonsense - the stupidity of historians !!! People were not stupid and didn’t poison themselves either under Grozny or now - the presence of mercury and arsenic in the bones of Grozny is direct evidence of attempts to poison the king !!! And strange visions, and fainting and seizures of the king are all the consequences of poisoning !!! And how should the king relate to those who poisoned him for years ??? - Naturally, he persecuted the conspirator conspirators and destroyed .. This is what he did throughout the second half of his reign !!!

      And by the way, Ivan IV the Terrible for the first time in official history was called Tatishchev in the 18th century before that Ivan the Third was officially called Grozny .... But the people of Grozny called strong tsars - who were formidable towards enemies of the state !!!
  34. Soko
    Soko 13 June 2020 12: 20 New
    +1
    Most often quarrel with those who are nearby.