Heroes of Gallipoli - March 18 1915

[Gondorian]

The most amazing thing about this is the prototype of Turkish Nationalism Mustapha Kemal was the commanding officer of this multinational force, imagine that Mustapha Kemal with Armenians under his command.

It is also interesting that immediatly after the war Mustapha Kemal recognized the Armenian Genocide, having not been informed that the official line was denial at the time.

[1.5 million]

Gondorian I think that you fail to give proper credit to the Turk as a warrior/fighter. In particular I think Ataturk understood well how to motivate the Turkish fighter in a very primal way - much as he understood the Turkish psyche very well in general. I don't think Armenians as a whole are necissarily any better warriors then Turks - in some cases Armenians have characteristics that are advantageous for certain types of warfare and Turks for others. In any event I don't think that Armenians could have done better then Turks in the Gollipoli environment for a variety of reasons..

[Gondorian]

1.5 million I agree that Turks are great warrior, they defeated the combined forces of Greece and Armenia at Manzikert which was a very hard fought battle, however my point was that it is incredible to think that some of the soldiers commanded by Mustapha Kemal the man many Armenians hate today commanded some Armenian Soldiers during his main claim to fame battle.

I personally think the Turks best type of battlefield is an attack on another nation, and that the best field of battle for Armenians and Greeks are defensive wars, I mean what was the last defensive war that Turks won, and when was the last offensive war Turks lost?

[imported_Sardarapat]

1.5 million I agree that Turks are great warrior, they defeated the combined forces of Greece and Armenia at Manzikert which was a very hard fought battle,

You make it sound as if the Turks were outnumbered,but the fact of the matter is quite the contrary. While Romanus Diogenes gathered a huge army, he was still outnumbered by the Turks. When the Byzantine army advanced towards the Turks, who refused to stand and fight, instead using the mobility of their horse-archers to harry the advancing Byzantines. Eventually, Romanus Diogenes ordered the withdrawal, intending to return to his camp for the night. The Turks harried the retreating columns, until the Emperor gave the order to turn and fight. At this point treachery played a part. The rearguard, commanded by Andronicus Ducas, an enemy of Romanus Diogenes, simply continued back to the camp, ignoring the order to turn, and leaving the main army to its fate. Once the rearguard was gone, the Turks were able to outflank the Byzantines, and eventually surround them. Had there been no treachery by Andronicus Ducas, the outcome might have been quite different.

I personally think the Turks best type of battlefield is an attack on another nation, and that the best field of battle for Armenians and Greeks are defensive wars,

I personally think the Turk's best type of battlefield is against unarmed civillians.

I mean what was the last defensive war that Turks won,

Gallipoli perhaps, but that was due the the "countless" mistakes of the British command such as landing on the wrong beaches where the soldiers were fully exposed to machine gun fire and mowed down etc etc.

and when was the last offensive war Turks lost?

Sardarapat. When Alexandropol fell, the Turkish Army poured into the Ararat Valley – the heart of Armenia. There was a major engagement at Sardarabad on May 22-26, where the Turkish Army was defeated and retreated. Off hand, I can't think of any other "offensive wars" by the Turks other than the combined attack on the ROA from the East and West with the help of the Bolcheviks and thier invasion of Cyprus.

[Gavur]

Turks being great fightyers is a myth big time!

[imported_Sardarapat]

Gondorian I think that you fail to give proper credit to the Turk as a warrior/fighter.

I think you give too much credit as Turks are not warriors since they prefer to do battle with unarmed civillians, old people, women and children.

I don't think Armenians as a whole are necissarily any better warriors then Turks - in some cases Armenians have characteristics that are advantageous for certain types of warfare and Turks for others. In any event I don't think that Armenians could have done better then Turks in the Gollipoli environment for a variety of reasons..

I don't agree. Armenians are absolutely better fighters than the Turks and are real warriors. The heavily outnumbered Armenian forces defeated the regular Turkish army at Sardarapat in 1918 and pretty much the same thing happened in NK in the early 90s when outnumbered Armenians defeated the Azeri Turks. The Turks were just plain lucky at Gallipoli. Had luck not played a part in that easy victory, I would put my money on the Armenians.

[elendil]

Look people, there is no thing as a race being a great warrior or not. Turks are named great fighters in the world since that is how they lived. We do not have a genetical superiority or a gift by god. Due to soldiering being our trade our culture has adapted to a militirastic nature which allowed Turkish nation to be more motivated, granted mobility in terms of movement and a war like physcology. If you train a boy regardless of ethnic background for war, he will be a fighter. Be it Armenian, Turkish, English...

As to Gallipoli, it is a war we won through great sacrifices naming it plain luck is an ignorant act. Please be sensible...

War is about being ready to move, technology of weapons, logistics, strategy and so on. We Turks have fought many wars. Sometimes we were defeated sometimes victorious. But we are still here, that alone grants us not being lucky but able enough to survive.

[imported_Sardarapat]

As to Gallipoli, it is a war we won through great sacrifices naming it plain luck is an ignorant act. Please be sensible...

On the contrary. Only an ignorant person would think that the Turks won due to "great sacrifice" or great fighting skills which is really what this is about.

The Gallipoli campaign was a disaster from beginning to end. The mission was ineptly commanded and poorly equipped. 17,000 men from the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzacs) under General Sir William Birdwood landed at what became known as Anzac cove, a mile north of their intended destination and surrounded by deep cliffs. Much of the failure has been attributed to poor coordination and leadership from the British General Sir Ian Hamilton, who chose to command the whole operation from aboard a ship and the poor quality of the maps used by officers.

Most military historians believe the campaign to take control of the Dardenelles Straits from the Turks was lost through tactical and logistical blunders. But a new study, reported in a leading newspaper, shows that even if the 500,000 allied troops had been given the right orders, they would have been unable to execute them because they had no idea of the terrain or the layout of the Turkish positions.

Officers relied on maps from tourist guide-books bought in Egypt, which were at least 10 years out of date. "Historians have recorded hundreds of mistakes but nobody has ever fully explained why they occurred," said Peter Doyle, one of the geographers who carried out the study at Greenwich University, London. "Our study shows the maps were far worse than anyone has ever realised and that most of the crucial failures can be blamed on soldiers having no idea of the terrain they were fighting in" he said. In one case, Australian and New Zealand troops were told to use a sandy beach for an easy landing, but nobody had charted the area for currents. The soldiers were swept on to rocks beneath steep cliffs, easy prey for the enemy gunners. In another incident, troops took a strategically important hill only to find there was a second one behind it, not marked on the map, with heavy Turkish fortifications. The Gallipoli campaign also cost the lives of more than 100,000 allied and Turkish soldiers with another quarter of a million wounded. So yes to the great sacrifice as made by all sides as in any war, but the Turks won because of the blunders of the enemy and not because they're any great warriors with fighting skills.

[elendil]

On the contrary. Only an ignorant person would think that the Turks won due to "great sacrifice" or great fighting skills which is really what this is about.

The Gallipoli campaign was a disaster from beginning to end. The mission was ineptly commanded and poorly equipped. 17,000 men from the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzacs) under General Sir William Birdwood landed at what became known as Anzac cove, a mile north of their intended destination and surrounded by deep cliffs. Much of the failure has been attributed to poor coordination and leadership from the British General Sir Ian Hamilton, who chose to command the whole operation from aboard a ship and the poor quality of the maps used by officers.

Most military historians believe the campaign to take control of the Dardenelles Straits from the Turks was lost through tactical and logistical blunders. But a new study, reported in a leading newspaper, shows that even if the 500,000 allied troops had been given the right orders, they would have been unable to execute them because they had no idea of the terrain or the layout of the Turkish positions.

Officers relied on maps from tourist guide-books bought in Egypt, which were at least 10 years out of date. "Historians have recorded hundreds of mistakes but nobody has ever fully explained why they occurred," said Peter Doyle, one of the geographers who carried out the study at Greenwich University, London. "Our study shows the maps were far worse than anyone has ever realised and that most of the crucial failures can be blamed on soldiers having no idea of the terrain they were fighting in" he said. In one case, Australian and New Zealand troops were told to use a sandy beach for an easy landing, but nobody had charted the area for currents. The soldiers were swept on to rocks beneath steep cliffs, easy prey for the enemy gunners. In another incident, troops took a strategically important hill only to find there was a second one behind it, not marked on the map, with heavy Turkish fortifications. The Gallipoli campaign also cost the lives of more than 100,000 allied and Turkish soldiers with another quarter of a million wounded. So yes to the great sacrifice as made by all sides as in any war, but the Turks won because of the blunders of the enemy and not because they're any great warriors with fighting skills.

Yes so

As to Gallipoli, it is a war we won through great sacrifices naming it plain luck is an ignorant act. Please be sensible...

Thanks..

[Gondorian]

Sardarapat

My point about the Turks defeating Greeks and Armenians at Manzikert was not about the numbers of soldiers Romanus Diogenes had with him, I should have made it clearer before, my point was the quality of the soldiers on the Byzantine side.

Romanus had some of the best the empire had to offer with him, and his army was one that Caeser would have been able to command with only a few adjustments in thinking. Byzantine Infantry where a fearsome force, and one that no commander, especially a commander of lightly armed Turkish Cavalry and Infantry wanted to fight out in the open. Although Alp Arslan had the numerical advantage many Turkish Lords before him had attacked smaller numbers of well trained Byzantine Infantry, and elite Kataphractii and recieved humiliating defeats, I agree with you though that had it not been for Andronicus the battle may well have had a different outcome, but despite that it was still a great accomplishment.

Gallipoli as you said was won because of countless British Mistakes, and the Turks still lost most of the other defensive battles of the first world war (Tel Aviv still has an Alenby Street making the Turks defeat their eternally remembered), and Sardarapat was an Armenian Defensive War as well as a Turkish Offensive War, and the same thing goes for the NK it was Armenian Expertise at defense vs Turkish Expertise at Offense.