And because it was foolhardy, not worth the time or effort or money and was never seriously entertained and that Podolia was costly and worthless enough.
being of Podolian origin, I am personally offended
Not every conquest is about money. Most border provinces will drag the budget down, because that's where the army is, and that's where the enemy doesn't let the province to flourish etc.
The Ottomans had already taken Podolia from Poland which was on the other side of Moldavia. How would Poland have stopped them?
Podolia was in turkish hands for 27 years only, and 3 centuries after the status of Moldavia was established.
Also Crimea wasn't a buffer state. It was a vassal and an arm of the Ottoman Empire for all intents and purposes. The Girays would be the one's to inherit the Ottoman Empire if the House of Osman was wiped out, it was Crimean forces that sacked Moscow, it was Crimean forces that raided Poland and Moscow, it was Crimean forces that fought with the Ottoman army in almost every war in Europe they waged.
And that is against my claim that it was a buffor state? It shows that it was a splendid buffor state!
When you vassalage a country it doesn't require your soldiers to go garrison it, you need not empty your treasury to defend it, you need not establish a office or bureaucracy, it is less taxing on your resources and considering that was how all those territories that you named acted it doesn't really show how that Ottoman Empire was interested in conquering worthless land.
Do you claim that the senior does not have any control over his vassal? My point stays: Crimea, Moldavia, Vallachia etc were part of the ottoman empire.
What do you base your opinion on?
And Poland wasn't at its peak. It was already falling apart.
I was refering to 1621 battle of Chocim (and earlier times), which clearly isn't the time of Sobieski.
Also encircling the Hapsburgs doesn't help the Ottomans much at all. What are they going to do invade Brandenburg? It was Vienna they wanted not a backwater.
Truly, there's no advantage at all in encircling an enemy and destroy its allies, not to directly threaten his other allies. You are a visionary strategist.
Moderator Action: Infraction for flaming. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
The Sultan took the army to a lot of places.
In the first half of XVII century, the custom of personal sultan expeditions was already ending. Also, where else did Osman II take his army to, btw?
As it's your thesis etc, I dare you to list all the military expeditions led by sultans from 1566 to 1699... To my knowledge there were only few of them, but perhaps you will enlighten me in this subject.
When Sobeski went to Vienna with an army was he trying to conquer it?
No, because he was on his ally's territory.
When Sultan Selim entered Tabriz did that mean he wanted to swallow all of Persia?
If one country conquers another country's capital, it's perfectly possible that it wants to conquer it. Why do you think otherwise?
No it wasn't. Bro this is my major, this is what study, this is what I write thesis on and have several papers about the Ottoman Empire is my specialization. So I don't much care for your nationalist wankery or wikipedia knowledge.
My opinions are not based on wikipedia, thank you. Isn't it you who was quoting wikipedia in this subject, anyway?
I do not question your knowledge of facts, I question your interpretations and assertions that apparently go beyond your thesis, because I doubt you have deep knowledge about XVI-XVII century polish economy, yet claim that it was "poor, sparcely populated". If you claim so, find some proof.
