if this is true why haven't they done anything yet
I hate Armenia because of this
To be honest, i would like to see the history from your side but if you come up with facts! Everything i have been writing here, is writing in History books in Azerbaijan based on Russian, Turkish and some other countries archive. I am good in History, so we can have discussion based on facts!
well , there are ethics that must be observed in society even if they are not rule ,in forums from the age of BBS it was impolite to type all your posts in bold or uppercase . uppercase meant shouting which I guess you understand why is not polite and typing in bold is like shaking somebody to get his attention .
well your post was correct except in one aspect safavide official language was never Turkish the safavide kings were all proficient with that language no doubt about it. And ishah Ismael they also talked with Turkish in the harem but when it come to keeping books they were using Persian language , schools were Persian everything else was Persian at the time of his successors they even spoke Persian between themselves.
In 1565, the Ottomans launched an invasion of Malta. Their goal was to destroy the pesky Knights of Saint John, who launched constant naval raids against the Ottomans. They had an invasion force tens of thousands strong versus a defending force of only a few thousand Knights and local Maltese militia. But in a siege of epic proportions, the Knights were able to hold on to their tiny island and drive the Ottomans off.
If you choose the wrong ones, you will lose, irregardless of other considerations.
@Nihonjin1051
Well as i said before its mostly the man behind the machine and mostly the strategy/tactics employed during battle under certain circumstances that wins a war. Manpower,resources, wealth are all of secondary importance(though they do have their own importance as well.).
There are several examples i can give throughout history:
In 1894, Japan was hardly the industrial powerhouse that it would become. And China had a lot more people than Japan. Yet, through a successfully modernized military, Japan was able to not merely defeat the Chinese but crush them. They managed to wrest control of Taiwan and Korea from China at almost no loss, having won the vast majority of engagements. China, despite its supposedly superior resources, was unable to deal with Japan's complete battlefield superiority and had to surrender after only a few months of resistance.
Similarly ancient Greece was nothing much. It was a not especially rich land and had poor agriculture. On the other hand, Achaemenid Persia was one of the largest and richest empire in the world. The Greeks looked upon its wealth with wonder. If strategy and tactics didn't matter, the Greeks would have been completely screwed when the Persians invaded them. Somehow, the squabbling Greeks made a working alliance and managed to drive the Persians out, with such famous actions as Thermopylae and Salamis. 150 years later, a young Alexander III of Macedon set out to conquer Persia. His position relative to the Persians was little better than the Greeks' before him. But Alexander's new phalanx gave him a decisive advantage. In one of the most spectacular campaigns in all of history he destroyed the Persian Empire in just a few years and made himself known to all posterity as Alexander the Great.
Another even more spectacular example was does anyone know what happened when tiny Malta stood alone against the Ottoman Empire at the height of its power? Why, the Ottomans get their butts kicked is what happens! lol .
The truth is, the side with the better strategy and tactics will always win. Even if it is as simple as "we have more men than you and can throw as many as necessary at you to achieve victory", that victory means that in this case attrition warfare was the better strategy. Strategy and tactics are everything.
Even today if North Korea with it's vast Army/Manpower/huge navy(by numbers)/resources was to launch an invasion against say Japan, we both know it's very unlikely they will even come close to defeat Japan(depends on tactics/strategy they will employ though).
This is also one of the main factors which drove Hitler to invade the Soviet union encouraged by the success of the Fins. What he didn't know was that the fins are even more familiar fighting in the harsh winter than the Russians. lol The Germans by contrast were not used to this, and the result is all we know today about how they got bogged/slowed down by the harsh Russian winter with tens/hundreds of thousands of their soldiers perishing without even fighting..
Well as i said before its mostly the man behind the machine and mostly the strategy/tactics employed during battle under certain circumstances that wins a war. Manpower,resources, wealth are all of secondary importance(though they do have their own importance as well.).
There are several examples i can give throughout history:
In 1894, Japan was hardly the industrial powerhouse that it would become. And China had a lot more people than Japan. Yet, through a successfully modernized military, Japan was able to not merely defeat the Chinese but crush them. They managed to wrest control of Taiwan and Korea from China at almost no loss, having won the vast majority of engagements. China, despite its supposedly superior resources, was unable to deal with Japan's complete battlefield superiority and had to surrender after only a few months of resistance.
Similarly ancient Greece was nothing much. It was a not especially rich land and had poor agriculture. On the other hand, Achaemenid Persia was one of the largest and richest empire in the world. The Greeks looked upon its wealth with wonder. If strategy and tactics didn't matter, the Greeks would have been completely screwed when the Persians invaded them. Somehow, the squabbling Greeks made a working alliance and managed to drive the Persians out, with such famous actions as Thermopylae and Salamis. 150 years later, a young Alexander III of Macedon set out to conquer Persia. His position relative to the Persians was little better than the Greeks' before him. But Alexander's new phalanx gave him a decisive advantage. In one of the most spectacular campaigns in all of history he destroyed the Persian Empire in just a few years and made himself known to all posterity as Alexander the Great.
Another even more spectacular example was does anyone know what happened when tiny Malta stood alone against the Ottoman Empire at the height of its power? Why, the Ottomans get their butts kicked is what happens! lol .
The truth is, the side with the better strategy and tactics will always win. Even if it is as simple as "we have more men than you and can throw as many as necessary at you to achieve victory", that victory means that in this case attrition warfare was the better strategy. Strategy and tactics are everything.
Even today if North Korea with it's vast Army/Manpower/huge navy(by numbers)/resources was to launch an invasion against say Japan, we both know it's very unlikely they will even come close to defeat Japan(depends on tactics/strategy they will employ though).
Those large armies/powers you mentioned achieved such feats.victories again due to strategy/tactics first (then secondly resources and manpower). Tactics and strategy DO matter alot in war It's the thing that determines how much of your potential is realized. Sometimes though,you can/might do it wrong and lose against a very lesser foe, but it cannot make you more than you are.
If anything, quality strategy and tactics could be described as maximizing the effect of what you have. (Which sometimes looks like making a bold move NOW because that's the only chance of winning. -This strategy, although often productive and dramatic, rarely works in the end.)
There is no escaping the fact that if you face a greater foe your chances of success are determined by...
1. The quality of THEIR strategy
2. Your ability to survive against said strategy
3. Whether or not this exposes any opportunities
4. Whether or not you're good enough to capitalize on them
For many the best that can be hoped for is being stuck on 2. We only see 4 happen in cases where the big guy is dumb AND the little guy is a genius. (Vietnam, not-Russia and not-Spain Napoleon, Israel, Finland *sorta*).
So the importance of strategy can never be ascertain enough. As another example, the Romans used strategy/tactics both effectively to defeat all of Gaul, with vast resources and a population of maybe 15 million when it had only the resources of a single city and a population of less than 1 million. The Gauls on the other hand had neither strategy or tactics and so were defeated despite their greater resources.
But there is also one main thing which needs to be stressed here: i.e Logistics, the often overlooked third side of a battle plan.
taking an example of my country, In the Battle of Britain in WWII, the Germans had superior numbers of planes and brought far more resources to bear in the attack Britain had for defense at the time. But the RAF, being on home ground, was better supplied, and had better intelligence (Radar)/strategy, so it could deploy its limited forces effectively against the larger enemy.
similarly, while Napoleon was a master strategist in his battle plans, and a master tactician on campaign, it was his attention to supply and supply lines that enabled him to deploy his troops to such effect. And it was lack of supply that caused his unrecoverable defeat in Russia. @FrenchPilot
However, i do know that the best strategy and tactics will not help you if you have no fuel for your tanks and no bullets for your guns. So too will all the munitions in the world be wasted if you can't get them to where/when they are needed.
Finally the Russians did failed in achieving their main objective which was the total invasion/annexation of Finland into the Soviet Union like they did with many other territories they annexed, even though the fins were totally outgunned/out manned/ill equipped compared to the Soviets..
DOnt compare two armies based on their todays capabilities... at least try to be fair dude!The Armenians were a rag tag militia.They were severely outmanned and outgunned on all fronts by Azerbaijan.They had no Air force while Azerbaijan had one.
Armenia +Nagorno-KarabakhAzerbaijan
Military personnel 20,000 (8,000 + 12,000)[22] 64,000
Artillery 177-187 (160–170 + 17)[106] 388[106]–395[107]
Tanks 90-173 (77–160 + 13)[106] 436[106]–458[107]
Armored personnel carriers 290-360(150[106]–240 + 120) 558[106]–1,264[107]
Armored fighting vehicles 39[106]–200 + N/A 389[106]-480
Fighter aircraft 3[106] + N/A 63[106]–170Gurgen Margaryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Helicopters 13[106] + N/A 45–51
Despite these disadvantages (1/3 in men,1/2 in artillery,1/2.5 in tanks,1/2.5 armored vehicles,1/50 ,lol,in fighter aircrafts,1/4 in helicopters) the brave Armenian kicked your butts ,yours,the grey wolf volunteers and the "mujahedeens" from Afghanistan and Chechnya.Even Shamil Basayev and his Chechens fled in Shusha with tail between their legs before the outnumbered Armenians.
All the "bravery" Azerbaijani soldiers are capable is to murder Armenian soldiers while they sleep at NATO training courses.
On 11 January 2004, he left for Budapest, Hungary, to participate in a three-month English language course which was part of NATO's Partnership for Peaceprogram. On 19 February he was axed, while asleep, by his fellow Azerbaijani participant, Lieutenant Ramil Safarov. The murder took place at 5 am, while the victim was asleep.
Gurgen Margaryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ofcourse when extradited from Hungary (which sentenced him to life in prison for murder) the Azerbaijani goverment who promised to continue jailing him has immediately given him a pardon and a medal ! We can imagine what kind of a military the Azerbaijani one is if it gives medals to pieces of filth which kill people when they sleep.
Azerbaijan does not attack,not because Russia would intervene,as it would if only Armenia not NK is attacked,but because it knows the Armenian militias would destroy them once again.
The only chance for Azerbaijan to win would be if all the Armenian soldiers will be sleeping so they could kill them without a fight back.
