Eugene of Savoy

[Pannonius]

On October 18th we comemorate the birth of one of the greatest christian champions of all times: François-Eugène, Prince of Savoy-Carignan. His name became a legend even during his lifetime. I apologize for not posting this on time to comemorate the anniversary, I was really busy these days...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_of_Savoy

 

[Huayna Capac357]

He looks pretty normal to me...What'd he do?

 

[Traitorfish]

He looks pretty normal to me...What'd he do?

Killed Muslims, which in Pannonius' book is just about the greatest thing a human being can hope to achieve.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

He looks pretty normal to me...What'd he do?

Was one of the greatest generals of his day?

He's also a good example of somebody rising to the top based on merit. IIRC, Eugene was an illegitimate child, and thus was banned from joining the French military, which is what he had wanted to do. So he instead became a lower-ranked officer for Austria, and got lucky one day when he stumbled upon some Turks and beat them at Zenta, allowing everyone to see his talents.

 

[sydhe]

He was a really fine general who joined with Marlborough in his finest battles, the most famous of which is Blenheim. Savoy also cleared out northern Italy in a brilliant campaign in that war, and also did quite well against the Turks. Although Marlborough is more famous among English-speakers, I think Eugene of Savoy was the better general.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Meh.

I prefer Saladin or Richard I any day, I find him a much more inspiration figure anyways.

I hate the cursades with a passion and yet their episode was a glimpse of chivalry in a war torn world.

 

[Dachs]

I think it's a pity that Eugen wasn't able to maintain sufficient security at Denain. He and Churchill/Marlborough/THAT DUDE made a good team, shame it was broken up.

Meh.

I prefer Saladin or Richard I any day, I find him a much more inspiration figure anyways.

I hate the cursades with a passion and yet their episode was a glimpse of chivalry in a war torn world.

This post is almost completely unintelligible to me, I'm sorry. I can understand the English, but the words are just one big contradiction. You prefer Saladin or Richard I, but you think Eugen von Savoyen is 'much more inspiration'...and say that you hate the cursades [sic], but that they were a glimpse of chivalry in a war torn world...I'm totally confused, here. Was this a glimpse of chivalry? Also, could you clarify your antecedents, here?

 

[Evie]

At least with regard to the second sentence, I think "their episode" refer specifically to Richard and Saladin's segment of the crusade.

Not that I agree with him, but that's how I read the post at least.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

I think it's a pity that Eugen wasn't able to maintain sufficient security at Denain. He and Churchill/Marlborough/THAT DUDE made a good team, shame it was broken up.

This post is almost completely unintelligible to me, I'm sorry. I can understand the English, but the words are just one big contradiction. You prefer Saladin or Richard I, but you think Eugen von Savoyen is 'much more inspiration'...and say that you hate the cursades [sic], but that they were a glimpse of chivalry in a war torn world...I'm totally confused, here. Was this a glimpse of chivalry? Also, could you clarify your antecedents, here?

I was referring more to The Third-Crusade, specifically the battles between Saladin and Richard.

Above you posted the Seige of Jerusalem (1099) where upon capturing the city, Crusade forces massacred the inhabitants of the city...

However, I refer more towards the Seige of Jerusalem (1187) where a massacre was avoided. Perhaps you disagree, but I believe the Crusade between Saladin and Richard was rather tame compared to what it could have been, mostly due to the chivalrous character of both men.

Also, I apologize, in my previous post I meant to type 'Them' rather then 'Him', Them referring to Saladin and Richard rather then Eugene of Savoy.

 

[Pannonius]

Killed Muslims, which in Pannonius' book is just about the greatest thing a human being can hope to achieve.

He liberated large portions of Europe from turkish hordes, that is a great achievement in my book.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

He liberated large portions of Europe from turkish hordes, that is a great achievement in my book.

You know there was a time that the Turks were one of the more tolerant empires in Europe... Over time they fell away from that tolerance but if ya ask me the Turks dont deserve the title horde... sorta implies they were barbaric monsters when in fact they had a culture and history that was rather glorious.

Course, thats just my unbiased opinion and I'm sure their are those that would argue it

 

[Dachs]

However, I refer more towards the Seige of Jerusalem (1187) where a massacre was avoided. Perhaps you disagree, but I believe the Crusade between Saladin and Richard was rather tame compared to what it could have been, mostly due to the chivalrous character of both men.

Also, I apologize, in my previous post I meant to type 'Them' rather then 'Him', Them referring to Saladin and Richard rather then Eugene of Savoy.

Ah. So the wholesale slaughter of nearly 3,000 prisoners on the part of the Christians in the siege of Acre (answered on the Muslim side by Saladin ordering the murder of all his Christian captives) was a fluke?

You know there was a time that the Turks were one of the more tolerant empires in Europe... Over time they fell away from that tolerance but if ya ask me the Turks dont deserve the title horde... sorta implies they were barbaric monsters when in fact they had a culture and history that was rather glorious.

At times, yes, but with caveats...that seems to be rather biased towards the experiences in Constantinople, for example the greater toleration of the Jews...whereas the record of the Turks in the countryside amongst the conquered Christian populace in southeastern Europe was far more checkered. There are two sides to every coin, after all...the Crusading rhetoric employed by the Holy League during the wars of reconquest had some nuggets of truth to it...

Course, thats just my unbiased opinion and I'm sure their are those that would argue it

Why is your opinion unbiased? Everybody is biased, whether intentional or not. I don't see why you get to be so special...

 

[knez]

You know there was a time that the Turks were one of the more tolerant empires in Europe... Over time they fell away from that tolerance but if ya ask me the Turks dont deserve the title horde... sorta implies they were barbaric monsters when in fact they had a culture and history that was rather glorious.

Course, thats just my unbiased opinion and I'm sure their are those that would argue it

Turks were tolerant and grand and wort of admiration, but only if you didn't live anyway near them

cause you know, they would come, conquror, pillage, rape, take populations of whole regions to slavery into their land, and stuff

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Woop de doo, he was a great general. That doesn't make him one of the greatest christian champions of all time. In fact, that puts him low on the list. (The Greatest Christians of all time (not counting Jesus):

The disciples + Paul
Gutenburg
Newton
Luther
MLK, Jr.

I would not put Eugene of Savoy on this list.

 

[Dachs]

I would not put Eugene of Savoy on this list.

That is because you have a different opinion than Pannonius does, and because you artificially restrict your list? I don't necessarily agree with either of you, but please, recognize that his view is colored by Eugen von Savoyen's efforts having a far greater practical impact in his particular neck of the woods, while yours is colored by being an American liberal.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

That's true. A European's opinion of a medieval/renaissance/baroque (whatever you want to term him) American figure would be different as well.

 

[Traitorfish]

He liberated large portions of Europe from turkish hordes, that is a great achievement in my book.

See how you use "hordes" to refer to one of the most effective, disciplined armies in Europe, as if they were nothing more than a band of rampaging Visigoths? And describe conquest by the oppressive Austrian autocracy as "liberated" simply because Austria happened to be Christian? That's kind of what I was getting at with the whole implication-of-anti-Islamic-bias thing.

Nice attempt at a dodge, though. Pity your word choice let you down.

 

[Dachs]

See how you use "hordes" to refer to one of the most effective, disciplined armies in Europe, as if they were nothing more than a band of rampaging Visigoths?

Uh. The disciplined Ottoman military that slaughtered the surrendering noncombatants at Perchtoldsdorf, right? And the effective Ottoman military that lost the Battle of Zenta with a numerical advantage of over 80,000 to about 60,000, inflicting less than a thousand casualties on an enemy which was horrendously provisioned and barely had a working hospital...the Turks were clearly in decline by the late 17th century, nothing like the excellent army which won the Battles of Chaldiran and Mohacs and expelled the Knights of St. John from Rhodes.

 

[Traitorfish]

Uh. The disciplined Ottoman military that slaughtered the surrendering noncombatants at Perchtoldsdorf, right? And the effective Ottoman military that lost the Battle of Zenta with a numerical advantage of over 80,000 to about 60,000, inflicting less than a thousand casualties on an enemy which was horrendously provisioned and barely had a working hospital...the Turks were clearly in decline by the late 17th century, nothing like the excellent army which won the Battles of Chaldiran and Mohacs and expelled the Knights of St. John from Rhodes.

Fair point, but my dispute was with Pannonius invoking the "Islamic hordes" image, as if we were talking about a barbarian tribe and not an organised Imperial state. The particular details are not that important, even if, I admit, I did overstate the quality of Ottoman forces by that point. I was merely attempting to stress that we were talking about an organised army, not a Pictish warband.
As I said, my point was that the language used by our ferociously anti-Islamic pal betrayed his biases, rather neatly proving me right, I feel.

 

[Dachs]

Fair point, but my dispute was with Pannonius invoking the "Islamic hordes" image, as if we were talking about a barbarian tribe and not an organised Imperial state. The particular details are not that important, even if, I admit, I did overstate the quality of Ottoman forces by that point. I was merely attempting to stress that we were talking about an organised army, not a Pictish warband.
As I said, my point was that the language used by our ferociously anti-Islamic pal betrayed his biases, rather neatly proving me right, I feel.

Oh, okay. Magnitude is always such a hard thing to judge.