Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 

Recommended Photo Store
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading? Click here to find out.
 
Make your Amazon purchases though this banner to support this blog:
 
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Contributors:
  •   Please send any comments or suggestions about America 3.0 to:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Ivan Aivazovsky, naval painter

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on August 25th, 2013 (All posts by )

    Ivan Aivazovsky (1817 – 1900) was in his time famous around the world, and deservedly so.

    This picture is about the Battle of Navarino in 1827. There are others at the Wikipedia page on Aivazovsky and a lot more at Wikimedia Commons.

     

    6 Responses to “Ivan Aivazovsky, naval painter”

    1. Roy Says:

      I wonder what would happen if the stories linked to the Battle of Navarino were even loosely known among U.S. voters. How would “dialogue” change with the recognition of the existence of concepts such as dhimi (non-citizen = instantly revocable rights servanthood of all not Muslim), jizya (arbitrary tax rates on all not Muslim), devsumi (1/5 of infant male children of non-Muslims snatched from families to become brain-washed military arm)?

      Ironies abound.

      One military irony: The Muslim siege of Vienna about a century and half before Navarino would have succeeded (and Europe probably become Muslim) had the Muslim military engineers not failed to cope with mud. The Muslim army had cannon which Vienna did not. Wasn’t chivalrous (yet, heh) to use cannon. But the transport of the Muslim cannon faltered because of mud. (Logistics observation common to another thread at Chicagoboyz). Then, ironically, at Navarino the forces joined against the Muslim alliance at Navarino had the better cannon. The Muslim forces not only had not improved their once decisive monopoly, the cannon they had were second-hand gotten from the (at this battle) enemies who had improved their own armament.

    2. Roy Says:

      Oops. What I had in mind was not the Battle of Vienna (Muslim attack in 1683), but the Siege of Vienna (Muslim attack in 1529). Means not century an half, but three centuries before Navarino.

    3. Ralf Goergens Says:

      Thanks, Roy!

      Three centuries makes sense, there is a lot of ruin in an empire, and it took that long for the Turkish Empire to stagnate fatally.

    4. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Sea_view_by_Moonlight.jpg

      “there is a lot of ruin in an empire, and it took that long for the Turkish Empire to stagnate fatally.”
      I wonder how long the USA has?

    5. Lexington Green Says:

      The Turkish Empire never stagnated fatally. It was attacked by three great powers, fought very hard, and only ended because of external attack. If the Ottomans had cut a deal with the Entente powers, it might still exist.

    6. Ralf Goergens Says:

      Thanks for the picture, Michael. I don’t think that the USA has ever been stagnating, when compared to any other country, though.

      Well, the term ‘fatally’ might be inappropriate, Lex. On the other hand, it wasn’t a first-rate power anymore. It was on the defensive and declining in . I think that somebody would ended it sooner or later, if not the Entente, then somebody else.