The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 64

Poland's King Jan III Sobieski - the stopper of Turkish Janissaries!


RonWest 3 | 120
24 Jan 2010  #31
I lift my shot glass filled with Sobieski Wodka this evening and toast to King Sobieski who kicked Turkish ass at the gates of Vienna!!!!!!!!!

By the way, if you live in California, Sobieski Vodka is available at BevMo and Nugget Market. FYI
Exiled 2 | 425
24 Jan 2010  #32
Sobieski was good.If only he hunted Turks after that instead of leaving the Austrians complete the job.
Nickidewbear 23 | 569
20 Aug 2011  #33
I have no nice words for Gomer (Germany, Austria, and the rest of the Frankish nations) myself-- even though my gentile (as far as I know, gentile) mom is of Frankish descent.
Envyme 10 | 28
27 Feb 2013  #34
Merged: The Polish King Who Saved Western Civilisation
John III Sobieski (17 August 1629 - 17 June 1696) was the King of Poland and hero in the Battle of Vienna. It is no exaggeration to say that this man saved Europe and therefore Western Civilisation by finally stopping the Ottoman Turks inceasing their colonisation and occupation of Europe in the great battle of 1683. Together with Charles Martel these two men can be seen as the ultimate champions of the West.

Ottoman expansion
naqshbandi.org/ottomans/maps/expansionmap.gif

Pope Innocent XI extended this feast to the universal Church as a solemn thanksgiving for the relief of Vienna, when it was besieged by the Turks in 1683.

The Turks had formerly laid siege to Vienna, under Solyman the Magnificent, in 1529, in the reign of Charles V. But after losing sixty thousand men, and lying a month before the place, without making any considerable advances against it, they raised the siege.
The danger was much more formidable when those infidels made a second attempt upon this bulwark of Germany, in the reign of the Emperor Leopold.

Source: nobility.org/2012/09/10/holy-name-of-mary/

Smurf,
video generation - too lazy to read? lol

Anyway, Muslims take over south-east Europe. They try to take over Austria (then probably the powerful country in Europe) and almost win but at routed by the Poles. Europe stays free but also gets coffee from the Turk.

And Its funny how the lists of jewish pogroms in East Europe usually start from around that period aswell (usually started off with Khmelyntsky uprising of 1646 onwards)...well atleast Western Civilization was saved!
APF 4 | 106
27 Feb 2013  #35
I knew, that Poles are even nowadays crying about the WW2 .. over and over again .. doing movies, serials, documentaries .. if you are in Poland, you think that Hitler still lives and we have the 40's ... but WTF?? Jan Sobieski??? The 17 th century??? Are you Poles serious?? You are in the UE??
Envyme 10 | 28
27 Feb 2013  #36
^Are you serious? It's Germans who are crying because they lost lands to Poles.
smurf 39 | 1,982
27 Feb 2013  #37
Magic, thanks :)
Now, is there a film?

You are in the UE??

EU :P
APF 4 | 106
27 Feb 2013  #38
^Are you serious? It's Germans who are crying because they lost lands to Poles.

No one cares, most people even dont now well about history down here .. and they dont loose their country to the Poles, only to the Russians, who gave the Poles this land.
Ziemowit 12 | 3,474
27 Feb 2013  #39
only to the Russians, who gave the Poles this land.

APF,. the Russians (all along with US, Britain and France) gave the Poles this land, but that took an even greater part of Polish territory to themselves. You may as well see it as a robbery on Germany which technically was achieved by shifting Poland from east to west.

A robbery somewhat justified in the light of the support of the Germans who brought Herr Hitler to power in the result of a democratic election. And in the light of the zeal of the One-Thousand Year Reich to conquer and sweep away other nations, and in particular the Slavs, from the map of Europe.
Envyme 10 | 28
27 Feb 2013  #40
And why do people think the Western civilization would have ended in the event of an Ottoman victory there? Vienna was ruled by Turkic Avars during the time of Charlemagne.

Europe and Poland
PennBoy 76 | 2,437
27 Feb 2013  #41
Sobieski stopped turks at vienna

Yes the heavy cavalry charge which he led broke the Turkish defense which led to their defeat but it didn't really take a heavy toll with losses on the Turks. The Battle of Parkany a few days later was a much bigger less known victory.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
5 Mar 2013  #42
Estimates vary but I'd say 15,000 Turkish casualties at the Battle of Vienna is significant.

King Sobieski did note that the Battle of Parkany pleased him more.
rock - | 460
14 Mar 2015  #43
Pleased to see that who manages to beat Turks with the help of a coalition of some other nations is seen as one of the greatest man in Slavic world :)

Meanwhile, most of the Turks do not wear burka and it is not a must ;)
Crow 137 | 7,590
14 Mar 2015  #44
Pleased to see that who manages to beat Turks with the help of a coalition of some other nations is seen as one of the greatest man in Slavic world :)

Sobieski was sword of justice. Turks themselves decided to sit on Slavic penis. Nobody called them.
rock - | 460
14 Mar 2015  #45
This Turkish-Slavic penis race may hurt you a lot so try not to mention it ;)

On the other hand, Sobieski opened the gate of partitions of Poland, German and Russian penises (with your definition) was ready to do their duty. But it seems Slavics only care about Turks, Christian penises welcome.
Levi_BR 6 | 220
14 Mar 2015  #46
Sobieski was sword of justice. Turks themselves decided to sit on Slavic penis. Nobody called them.

Actually Mehmed II , the main sultan of the ottoman empire, was famous for using slavic slaves to please him, he was a very famous homosexual.

Pederasty was a common factor among Ottomans.
rock - | 460
14 Mar 2015  #47
Mehmet II was famous for conquering İstanbul. Others are sick fantasies of yours.
Levi_BR 6 | 220
14 Mar 2015  #48
Pleased to see that who manages to beat Turks with the help of a coalition of some other nations

Well, Turks also fought with a coalition when they invaded the balkans, more specifically with everything that they enslaved all the way to there. And also their mongol relatives of the crimean khanate.

And still they lost.

Because even with huge numbers of soldiers, they lack the knowledge and organization of any normal military.

Just greedy, hate and killer-feeling was not enough for the turks to conquer, subjugate and convert europe to Islam.

Fortunately.

Thanks Sobieski.
Sczur - | 28
12 Nov 2015  #49
I like the Polish royal family better than any of the English putting their **** and **** in boxes and bottles
Levi 12 | 450
12 Nov 2015  #50
It is impossible to compare the royals of England with the royals of Poland.

While the royals of england almost never stepped on battlefield and preferred to hire pirates and mercenaries because they were too coward to fight, the polish royals were on the frontline themselves or, if too old, they sent their sons to fight and defend the country among the soldiers.

Huge, huge difference.
jon357 63 | 14,122
12 Nov 2015  #51
Nope, Levi, many were on the battlefield, some killed very little difference between the two countries.

Especially in the period that Jan III Sobieski lived.
Levi 12 | 450
12 Nov 2015  #52
Nope, Levi, many were on the battlefield, some killed very little difference between the two countries.

Not True John.

During the high middle ages, in a timespam of 400 hundred years, Only 1 english king (Richard III) died on battlefield and was not even fighting agains invading forces but rather against his own people.

It was extremelly uncommon for kings from West Europe to go to the battlefield. They were not even physically prepared for that (just remember that most english, french and Spanish kings where fat and/or untrained).

Meanwhile in the Slavic world, it was a tradition that Kings and Nobles fought amoung common soldiers.
bunensis
12 Nov 2015  #53
"It was extremelly uncommon for kings from West Europe to go to the battlefield."

You are obviously unfamiliar with the battle of Agincourt .
jon357 63 | 14,122
12 Nov 2015  #54
It was extremelly uncommon for kings from West Europe to go to the battlefield.

Very untrue, Levi. Dozens of Kings went into battle and even more of their sons.
InPolska 11 | 1,821
12 Nov 2015  #55
Yes, in the Middle-Ages for instance, most (if not all) kings went fighting. If I remember well from school Francis I ("François 1er") was even made prisonner for many years.
Harry
12 Nov 2015  #56
During the high middle ages, in a timespam of 400 hundred years, Only 1 english king (Richard III) died on battlefield and was not even fighting agains invading forces but rather against his own people.

It was extremelly uncommon for kings from West Europe to go to the battlefield

Harold II (killed in the battle after his forces had killed another western king), William I, Richard I all died in battle. And Richard III died while leading a charge right at his successor, Henry VII.

But it's no surprise to learn that Levi is as ignorant about the kings of Europe as he is of the immigration laws of Poland.
jon357 63 | 14,122
12 Nov 2015  #57
And royalty fighting well into the 19th century (something which wouldn't have been possible in Poland) and of course the King's cousin dying in WW2.

Naturally, I won't mention Prince Harry.

Quite what this has to do with Jan III Sobieski is hard to see, except worth pointing out that in his day it was expected that royalty led battles.
Harry
12 Nov 2015  #58
Naturally, I won't mention Prince Harry

Something of a family tradition really. His uncle, Prince Andrew, was on the front-line in the Falklands war at the time that he was second in line to the throne too.

Quite what this has to do with Jan III Sobieski is hard to see, except worth pointing out that in his day it was expected that royalty led battles.

Indeed it was. Both in our country and in England.
gregy741 4 | 1,204
12 Nov 2015  #59
much bloodier battle occurred few days after Vienna relief ,in Parkany Hungary.anyway..Sobieski had lots of success vs Turks,in Chocim and tons other places.that was the reason he was elected King.good commander.

On the other hand, Sobieski opened the gate of partitions of Poland, German and Russian penises

rubbish statement.partition of Poland was result of Polands massive degenerated politycal and social system of so called noble democracy.disaster was long coming to ever weakening Poland .Sobieski had no power to change that.and Austria was just opportunist in participation process,not initiator.even if austria fell to ottomans there is no reason to believe that Poland would be intact.
Harry
12 Nov 2015  #60
partition of Poland was result of Polands massive degenerated politycal and social system of so called noble democracy.

That and a habit of severely p!ssing off all of the countries around Poland. A habit repeated in the interbellum years which led to Poland again being partitioned. Hopefully the new government won't have time to repeat the trick.


Home / History / Poland's King Jan III Sobieski - the stopper of Turkish Janissaries!
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.