06 Maestro
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Please indulge me in pointing out to Turkey's current "allies" that, apparently from the Sultan's perspective, being "allied" by treaty with Turkey and France, and helping to defeat Austria did not constitute a "real alliance" (let us not forget that it was Russian troops who finally were able to occupy Vienna, not Turks . . .).
IIRC it was a one year agreement to dow mutual enemies and to refuse trade for two years with Austria. The proposal came from Russia. The Franco/British/G.B Alliance is an open ended alliance which will last forever unless someone wishes to pay the price for breaking it. Austria has likewise joined in a similar agreement with the O.E. Russia has consistently refused to join in such an agreement. Even so, the O.E. has gone to great expense and effort to help Russia build up its empire.
The performance of the Russian Army in the last Austro/Ottoman War was less than stellar. That is another whole issue that is best left forgotten. The Ottoman Army lost nearly 1/2 million men. The circumstances of many of those losses were tied to the Russian Army's performance-or lack thereof. The war would have been won by France and the O.E. eventually-and possibly with much lower losses without Russian intervention.
As I recall, it was requested for a depot sharing treaty-Russia countered with the one year treaty. Russia wanted in the war when it was looking like an easy win.
quote:
However, subsequent favoring of Austria over Russia by suggesting that Russia curtail her surrender terms and join an Ottoman-Austrian alliance _would_ have constituted a "real alliance" in the Sultan's mind.
No it wouldn't. All it would have done was to help Russia avoid an embarrassing defeat. The approach to Austria was a costly endeavor by the Ottoman Empire. The reason that it was undertaken was to assist Russia in its very ill timed and executed attack on Prussia. The way Prussia was slaughtering the Russian Army I did not think it prudent to take the time to march half way through Europe to help you. The O.E. needed a direct approach. To gain such an avenue to attack Prussia (of which the O.E. had no qualms other than it was an enemy of my allies-saying this even though our treaty had expired) it was necessary to give up a hard won province and make a substantial payment to Austria. This was all done to help Russia. Do you think Prussia would have surrendered to Russia had the Ottoman Armies not shown up on its southern border? 
Further; demands of tribute for 3 full years is outlandish-by any standard that I am aware of-except that of some drunken Cossack brigands. Russia owes its empire status and victories in (edit) three wars to Ottoman assistance. Russia was rapidly advancing in the world. Now, it is approaching its old position of wallowing in squaller and knee deep in unwanted wool.
Russia would have profited immensely by accepting the proposed idea of payments to Russia by France and the O.E. if Russia would make like payments back to Austria-You refused. Russia could also have sought a cease fire which would have ended the war with Austria after it had begun-you refused. Instead the Czar apparently conspired with Prussia to attack Austria-no doubt as a preliminary move to invading the O.E. --and it has actually declared war on the O.E. Russia has bit the hand that fed it-it will now starve until it see's the error of its ways.
quote:
Turkish loyalty and graciousness to those who have helped them to rise to the top of the food chain is spectacular to behold, no?
My actual true allies have no complaints that I am aware of. At least none of them have issued a declaration of war against the Ottoman Empire- Russia has.
The Sultan has grown weary of this unrelenting insolence. The Czar has 3 months to make peace with Austria-that is, by March of 1810. Russia's transgressions will be overlooked if peace is had before that time. Otherwise.... 
< Message edited by 06 Maestro -- 11/25/2010 5:08:38 AM >
_____________________________
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.
Thomas Jefferson
|
Printable Version
RE: PBEM 109 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread