now that the dust has settled, how could the Byzantines successfully defended Constantinople against the Turks?

now that the dust has settled, how could the Byzantines successfully defended Constantinople against the Turks?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There was no turning back after that mess that was the 4th crusade

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >catholics frick it up for everyone else

      a tail as old as time

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        v*netians frick it up for everybody else*
        austria directly annexing v*nice was one of the only good things that mess of an empire did

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >yeah bro just let byzantium massacre the latins and don't pay back debts just be the bigger person and don't retaliate bro

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shouldn't have massacred them then.

        v*netians frick it up for everybody else*
        austria directly annexing v*nice was one of the only good things that mess of an empire did

        Funny enough, there's an Orthodox community in Venice to this day, descendants of the refugees of Constantinople fled there and were welcomed as additions to the city's already-thriving trades. When you have a bunch of Catholics living among the Orthos like that, they somehow seem to get butchered instead.
        I'd say something about what they're like in Venice, but the whole city tends to be extremely closed off and cagey towards outsiders of all kinds. They don't have a night life or a very open population, and I'm guessing they didn't historically either since they have a whole holiday where they put on masks just to be more sociable in public.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Protestants literally sided with Muslims instead of Catholics. Protestants are non-dedicated cherry picking Christians. You probably post "John 3:16" on Facebook because that's the only Bible verse you know lmao.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Real prots will always theologically mog orthocux and catholicuck apostolic larpers. You dont even have assurance of salvation. There is no sanctification without justification as its fuel.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just leave the whole Franco-ottoman alliance out of it. Ya papist swine. You know France, that paragon of Catholicism?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >France, that paragon of Catholicism?
            According to literally nobody.
            Remember the French Revolution?
            Or the massive amounts of israelites there?
            Or free masons?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        v*netians frick it up for everybody else*
        austria directly annexing v*nice was one of the only good things that mess of an empire did

        if it wasnt for constantine and his idiotic need of killing everyone that wasnt christian and having the mentality of
        >what are you gonna do about it
        the venetians wouldnt have even dared to attack like they did
        honestly for me this was the tipping point his need to make christianity the sole religion was the downfall of byzantium

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Crusaders help you get back most of your lost territory and even put up buffer states which divert Muslim attention
        >ape out and attack the 2nd Crusade for no reason
        >Help Saladin in the 3rd Crusade
        >Massacre Latin Christians for the lulz in your capital
        >Don't pay back the debt
        >Excommunicated crusaders sack your city
        >"Damn Catholics ruining everything"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There was almost a 200 year gap between these events.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yep, and the Mongols fricking up the durkas was the only thing that kept it from happening sooner.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There was no "crusade" directed at Constantinople. The latins that left Venice with the intent of attacking roman lands were denounced by the pope and I believe even excommunicated.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Correct. Orthodox just want to play the victim card, and ignore that the whole thing never even would have happened had they not massacred the latins

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Converted to Islam.
    Repented later.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Repented
      you do realize that christians and muslims worship the same god, right?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They do? Wow they are NOT going to like this little factoid after I tell them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Damn bro you're so smart!
        Not.
        You theologically illiterate fool.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No we don't. Allah calls for human sacrifice, and Muslims practice it. They're a bunch of fricking devil worshippers.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Allah calls for human sacrifice
          wat

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They practice human sacrifice? homie?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Care to cite the Quranic verse that calls for that? How about you take a second before posting shit you saw in one of your Facebook boomer reels.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This, people keep killing each other en masse over which version of the same semitic israelite god to worship. Abrahamic religions are a fricking disease. If I had a time machine I'd blow the first author of the Torah's head off.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And there it is.
          The most moronic take in the thread.
          Most wars, wars including “religious “ ones are economic or territorial in nature, as war is just politics by other means.
          I’d tell you to go leave but they don’t want (you) either, so instead I’ll tell you to do your family a favor and have an aneurysm.
          If I had a Time Machine, I’d give your dad a condom.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          based. bring back the greco-roman religion. it was at least interesting and fun

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Catholicism and Orthodox literally are Greco-Roman culture... Athens has had more to do with the development of Christianity that Jerusalem has
            PROTIP: The world Bible comes from the Greek Biblios, meaning book
            PROTIP #2: Most of the Bible, New Testament and even the Old Testament/Torah, was first composed in Koine Greek

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          based. bring back the greco-roman religion. it was at least interesting and fun

          Correct takes

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Islam is a religion invented on the spot by an autistic brown bandit who needed to justify his Black person-tier behavior
        >n-no, you can't talk to the prophet right now, he's sleepy

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >christians and muslims worship the same god
        please
        >the christian god, Jehovah, is a triple deity
        >the muslim god, Allah, is singular

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no one expects the monophysite heresy

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He pulled himself together.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lel

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The only lil prodlem being, the towelhead revelations “god” apparently demands people learn Arabic just to convert. 10/10 real, not just browns in a cave making shit up

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Muslims follow Allah, the same God of the israeli people. This unbroken line goes all the way back to Abraham and his sons. Christians are crypto-pagans who worship a mortal man. This line goes back to the Roman senatorial class and has no connection to Abraham. Even their saints are just repackaged pagan deities. They can scream and yell until their blue in the face about their "trinity" concept, but they're still just pagans. There's a reason israelites can hold temple in a mosque but will not hold it in a church, it's a pagan altar and would be an insult to Jehovah/ Allah.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Muslims claim that israelites are wrong and Christians are misguided but followers of the same god as them, funny how you all disagree.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Muslims deny that Jesus is the son of God, and the trinity.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Only if, what if the NT is wrong on that? The NT is the re-revision of the Bible.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If the NT is false, Islam would still be false, since 1. Muhammad contradicts the Old Testament and 2. Muhammad affirms the inspiration and preservation of the New Testament (which also says Muhammad is a false prophet so Islam is fricked either way)

            Muhammad was a caravan robber who made up revelations for women and power

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >If the NT is false, Islam would still be false, since 1. Muhammad contradicts the Old Testament and 2. Muhammad affirms the inspiration and preservation of the New Testament
              Spoonfeed me please.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'll tl/Dr as best I can

                In the Quran, Muhammad is asked to arbitrate a disagreement with israelites. He places the Old testament on the judge's pillow and says "they don't need me, they have the scripture." He then affirms the divine inspiration and preservation of the israeli Old testament and Christian Bible.

                This is a problem for Muslims, because the Bible says that Muhammad is a false prophet. So either: 1. The Bible is correct and Muhammad is a false prophet or 2. The Bible is incorrect, and Muhammad is a false prophet for saying the Bible is true in The Quran (which Muslims believe is the eternal speech of Allah)

                The typical Muslim cope to this is that the Bible we have now has been corrupted somehow and is different than the one in his day. This is of course nonsense, as we have many Bibles older than Muhammad and they're the same.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How can the bible tell that Mohammed is false when the Bible precedes Mohammed?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Basic gist is that there really arent supposed to be prophets post jesus iirc

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Without getting into detail, the Bible gives instruction on how to identify a false prophet vs a true prophet, and Muhammad checks all the false prophet boxes

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry was meant for

                How can the bible tell that Mohammed is false when the Bible precedes Mohammed?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what if the Nt is wrong about the important bit ha ha
            Frick off.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sola scriptura, and teaching peasants to read was a mistake

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          jesus is a prophet, not the son of god

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If he was not the Son of God, why did the voice of the Holy Spirit speak such aloud in the presence of the Apostles on the holy mountain, where he was seen speaking with the spirits of Moses and Elijah in the presence of holy light?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oi, frick you, youre wrong.

            Bam! Religious war. You see the problem here, yeah?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are wrong, and there is no middle ground.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If his not the son of God then wouldn't that make him a liar. If he were a liar, how could anyone see him as a prophet. The logic there isn't sound.

            The face is he is the Son of God and everything he said is true regardless of what you think.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Correct
        Are we all not sons of Abraham?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        At least one person itt knows slmething about Mediterranean religions. I assume you're either Muslim or israeli, or, heavens forbid, Catholic.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Catholics are strictly trinitarian you moronic American NuOrthodox convert

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes If they're non-trinitarian like Mormons or JWs no if they're trinitarian like Orthodox or Catholic
        Because Muslims don't believe in Jesus' Divinity, they worship a different God altogether

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        islam started as nestorian Christianity with a cult leader bolted where christ and god were.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even worse, Muhammad's friend was a Collyridianist monk, which is why the Quran, the supposed eternal speech of allah, gets tge trinity wrong and plagarizes a bunch of apocryphal Christian stories, like Jesus making clay birds come alive (which is from the protogospel of James)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Islam is like Mornmonism but older

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >liberation

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's for an English-speaking audience. "Liberated" is the new speak they're receptive to. To their own audience it's obviously a conquest and celebrated as such.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >liberated
      Whut

      That’s how you influence DEI libtards. They’re Pavlov-trained to certain trigger words, like coloniser and liberate. You call israelites colonisers(ignore the entire history of the region) and you call muslims liberators. And boom, queers for palestine.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >call israelites colonisers(ignore the entire history of the region)
        huh?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Jews are indigenous to Israel, with cultural records, archaeological evidence, and even DNA mapping to prove it. Every israelite, from the whitest Ashkenazi to the blackest Ethiopian, draws a direct cultural and genetic lineage to Israel.
          Naturally, this is rather inconvenient to the narrative of the Arabs, who would rather pretend that the israelites never existed there in the first place and that every Israeli is actually a White Coloniser who must be either kicked out or killed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The average asheknazi is 50% Levantine at best. There was a big paper on this a few years ago. Outliers can be as little as 10-20% Levantine. Sephardics and inner Asian Mizrahim only seem more genetically israeli because their host pops with which they hybridized share more components with Levantines. It has long been proven that the diaspora was created by itinerant males.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The big problem for Muslims is that they falsely claim that Muhammad was a descendent of Ishmael and that Abraham took a several hundred mile detour to Mecca to build the Kaabah in order to give Muhammad some legitimacy, which is hilarious

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              or that they had to put in the night ride on a mythical creature just to get him in Jerusalem one time and to avoid having to explain why no one in Jerusalem saw him because night

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Draws a DIRECT [cultural] lineage to Israel
            Lmao

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >daily turkic
      context clues, anon

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >liberated
    Whut

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    More, and quicker support from the west could have helped. A few ships from the Italian states had major impacts whenever they did show up.
    Memet being less capable, losing his nerve or being usurped his nobles would have also ending things in Byzantiums favour. But it will have fell at some point, it was becoming incredibly isolated and its glory days were long gone after multiple plagues and invasions.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The perfidious Gr**k had it coming.
      Their scheming and politicking bit them instead of embracing the Crusaders.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >liberated
    Literally not even they can argue that

    Anyway, time to cry

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Should have abandoned all provinces but for Egypt in 418 AD. Use freed up revenues and interest mechanic to produce fat stacks of coin.
    Build up strength and when ready, destroy the Huns.
    Anyways it works for me in TW:Attila so it should work for them.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >twitter screencap thread
    into le trash it goes!

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    not sperging out over icons
    not sperging out over literal what reasons every few years
    not sperging over unification with the Church
    not butchering the latins so they come get vengeance
    In an ideal world the Byzantines would have focused on the challenge at hand and in turn had been left alone to do so. But when you think you are the sole heir to Rome, equal in her glory and might. You will get some issues.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In an ideal world the Byzantines would have focused on the challenge at hand and in turn had been left alone to do so. But when you think you are the sole heir to Rome, equal in her glory and might. You will get some issues.
      Therein lies the problem, they were Rome without the vast lands, wealth, or luxuries of the empire.
      Rome was always a conflicted, tumultuous nation that survived off of being too big to beat.
      Byzantium was merely Rome after it became too small to assert itself.
      It was inevitable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I hate this meme of le permanently dying always weak byzantine empire. They lasted 2x longer than the roman empire ffs. You don't last that long without vast lands, a strong military, wealth and luxury of your own.
        Why is it that when we think byzantium we automatically think of their rump state in the 14th and 15 th century + their collapse, but when we think Rome we automatically picture peak empire with its vast legions and stunning engineering in the 1century ? Makes no fricking sense.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because the Roman empire was based and greatly impacted the development of the west. The Byzantine empire was never going to get that same ideation by virtue of being in Asia Minor. It's a western world, you're just living in it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >They lasted 2x longer than the roman empire ffs.
          Yes, but they never attained the same level of success that Rome did.
          When you succeed another nation, you will inevitably be compared to them, and should you not measure up to what came before, you'll be seen as a failure.
          It's a bit unfair, and not entirely accurate in terms of the bigger picture of how things were for those there at the time, but it answers the question.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because the story of the Byzantine Empire is decline.

          >lose the italian peninsula to the lombards
          >lose egypt and the middle east provinces to the arabs
          >new empires cuck you out of the balkans
          >lose anatolia to the turks due to court intrigue
          >constant religious slapfights over autistic shit that only weaken society
          >intrigue out the ass, with moronic nonsense like political mutilations being common
          >by the 11th century you have to call for the "barbarian" latins to bail you out multiple times
          >backstab the guys you called to help you multiple times
          >one of your dipshit emperors recruits crusaders to save your empire again, knowing that you don't have enough in the treasury to pay them with
          >so weak that said crusaders destroy you once they realize they're not getting paid
          >empire is miraculously remade but squanders this second chance until they're little more than constantinople and the surrounding area with a few holdings in greece proper

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hey basil2 electric boogaloo disregarded women and acquired lands the empire couldnt hold

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The classical Roman Empire's decline isn't as dominant in the narrative because it was destroyed (in the West) pretty quickly into the cycle. It comes through the 3rd century crisis weaker and poorer, then when the barbarian invasions happen it's worn away to nothing in less than a century. The story of classical Rome's response to crisis isn't decline, it's collapse.
            In contrast, in the east they push back the barbarians that destroyed the Western Empire. Then they defeated the great Persian invasion, survive and outlast the Arabs, weather the Turkish invasions, survive getting their entire state destroyed in 1204, and then for good measure weather through the Mongols.
            The story of the Byzantines isn't lazy decadence in the face of mild adversity, it's astonishing resilience to a large number of threats, each of which should have been civilization ending (and most of which destroyed some of Byzantium's peers when they came through).

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              also they got fricked in the ass by the plague

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Most of these threats were caused by their own greed, incompetence, and backstabbing.

              >christians in the middle east accepted mulsim rule instead of rebelling because having to pay a tax in exchange for being left alone was a better deal than being subject to the byzantine's ever-shifting opinion of what "correct" christianity is
              >the massive divisions in the court and byzantine's own frickups regarding money mean that a gaggle of raiders hitting anatolia are allowed to settle and rule their last major province instead of wiping them out or pushing them back
              >they backstabbed the people sent to help them from the problem they created multiple times over petty court politics
              >refusal to pay debts has crusaders destroy the empire

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's notable that the Arabs, despite destroying the Persian Empire and creating the largest empire in world history until the Mongols, couldn't manage to conquer the Byzantines.

                It's less notable that people who had endured decades of foreign occupation didn't engage in suicidal rebellions against the fortified garrisons of armies that were busy creating one of history's largest empires.

                As for those 'gaggle of raiders', when the Western Empire had a similar problem with nomadic peoples coming in and taking land while they were weak, those groups took over the military in a generation and overthrew the state in less than a century. Meanwhile the Byzantines had pushed the Turks back far enough that when the Crusaders took over, their exiled leaders set up in Anatolia and managed to retake the capital.

                Finally, those 'debts' they 'refused to repay' weren't exactly real debts. The crusader leaders found a deposed guy, made him promise far more than money and soldiers than the Byzantines had, then drew up a secret contract dividing Byzantine territory between themselves before making their demands which they knew wouldn't be accepted. That's not a refusal to pay obligations biting them in the ass, that's being plundered by ostensible allies who saw a moment of weakness and took advantage.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          they were only strong when everyone around them was weak
          their only strength was being able to endure being continuously fricked in the ass for centuries and somehow surviving

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This; the Byzantine Empire had direct control over some of the wealthiest Roman provinces

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When Rome came to its peak, there were no more enemies posing any existential threats.
        Byzantium for all its existence was surrounded by such enemies, coming in wave after wave.
        The two situations are not that comparable, and i'd say that to a great extent, Western Europe has had it better because of Byzantium acting as a deterring barrier that slowed down the waves of barbarians.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Rome was tiny for most of its existence. And problems started the moment it became big/became an empire.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    itt

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But why is he wearing the Hungarian crown?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'd like to take the time to post the Byzantine's Crown Princess lusting after a crusader in her Alexiad:
      >“The appearance of this man was, to put it briefly, unlike that of any other man whether Greek or barbarian seen in those days on Roman soil. The sight of him inspired admiration, the mention of his name terror. I will describe in detail the barbarian's characteristics. His stature was such that he towered almost a full cubit over the tallest men. He was slender of waist and flanks, with broad shoulders and chest, strong in the arms; overall he was neither too slender, nor too heavily built and fleshy, but perfectly proportioned - one might say that he conformed to the ideal of Polyklitos. His hands were large, he had a good firm stance, and his neck and back were compact. If to the astute and meticulous observer he appeared to stoop slightly, that was not caused by any weakness of the vertebrae of the lower spine, but presumably there was some malformation there from birth. The skin all over his body was very pale, except for his face which was pale but with some colour to it too. His hair was light-colored and did not go down to his shoulders as it does with other barbarians; in fact, the man had no great predilection for long hair, but cut his short, to the ears. Whether his beard was red or of any other color I cannot say, for the razor had passed over it closely, leaving his chin smoother than any marble. However, it seemed that it would have been red. His eyes were light-blue and gave some hint of the man's spirit and dignity. He breathed freely through nostrils that were broad, worthy of his chest and a fine outlet for the breath that came in gusts from his lungs."
      This comes from one of the most important historical sources of the Byzantine Empire, and the Emperor's 14-year-old daughter was flicking it to Bohemond I within its pages. He's the only person she ever describes in such detail. This isn't even all of it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >your greatest rival and pain in the ass daughter cuck you
        It can't get any worse

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Honestly the one saving grace for Emperor Alexios was that Bohemond didn't bother with his daughter himself. He likewise seems to have turned down an offer made by the Armenian chieftain to give his daughter in marriage to Bohemond in exchange for protection. He ended up marrying the daughter of King Phillip of France instead.
          Bohemond's life really just reads like a chaste Chad Thunderwiener.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        While Anna did definitely want the BBC (Big Bohemond wiener), she's also playing up how awesome he was to make the her dad look less bad for getting beat by him and better for when he kicked his Norman ass (twice).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Didn't Bohemond manage to beat the Varangian guard as well?

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Put all the money into the soldiers so
    1. you have better soldiers
    2. there's nothing to loot for invaders

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick, that's actually a good idea.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stop having civil wars every 5 seconds for the last millennia

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Liberated the city from its own founders
    The roaches really are something

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By not having constant civil wars.
    By not obsessing over petty religious bullshit all the time.
    By not hating Catholics more than Muslims.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    deploy the Bloatlord as front line defense

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lmao stupid christian (and it's not even the good christian) still butthurt about losing their tiny little city when the same "crusaders" came to south america and pillaging cities, temples and palaces for their kleptomanic tendencies

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ...and rape. starting with Mehmet, who famously assraped a young Byzantine prince in front of his family to let everybody know who the new boss was, and ending with every nun in the city.

    Never, ever buy mudslime propaganda at face value, folks. Ever.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >now that the dust has settled, how could the Byzantines successfully defended Constantinople against the Turks?

    The Byzantine Empire ca 1400s was a dead man walking. The Crusaders truly killed it, and the huge Ottoman invasions of Greece in the 1300s reduced it to a rump state.

    What Mehmed II did in 1453 was euthanize a dying realm.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At least one decent post itt.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Idk but not leaving one of the main gates open certainly would have helped.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They were under mass siege with artillery bombardment; there was no winning without outside help.
      Not fricking with the Sultan in the first place might have benefited them, tho.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why DID Constantinople get the works?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Partly for being fart huffing homosexuals LARPing as the second Rome. Partly for acting like they were God's gift to western civilization, and treating everyone outside of the empire (including the Euros who were responsible for a frick ton of the tradable goods and gold going East), like second class citizens. They then are surprised when said people treated like second class citizens don't rally their countries to face a threat THE BYZANTINES THEMSELVES have been stoking for generations. See

      Because the story of the Byzantine Empire is decline.

      >lose the italian peninsula to the lombards
      >lose egypt and the middle east provinces to the arabs
      >new empires cuck you out of the balkans
      >lose anatolia to the turks due to court intrigue
      >constant religious slapfights over autistic shit that only weaken society
      >intrigue out the ass, with moronic nonsense like political mutilations being common
      >by the 11th century you have to call for the "barbarian" latins to bail you out multiple times
      >backstab the guys you called to help you multiple times
      >one of your dipshit emperors recruits crusaders to save your empire again, knowing that you don't have enough in the treasury to pay them with
      >so weak that said crusaders destroy you once they realize they're not getting paid
      >empire is miraculously remade but squanders this second chance until they're little more than constantinople and the surrounding area with a few holdings in greece proper

      for the specifics.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thats nobody's business but the turks

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only one who got it

        Sieges had this rule, and had it for millennia: if you surrender with terms, the city is spared the worst of it. If the city is taken by storm, all bets are off. Mehemet getting his soldiers back in line after 72 hours and declaring certain buildings off limits was actually pretty generous when it comes to sacks of capitals and wealthy cities. The 1204 sack was the more destructive one overall.

        Partly for being fart huffing homosexuals LARPing as the second Rome. Partly for acting like they were God's gift to western civilization, and treating everyone outside of the empire (including the Euros who were responsible for a frick ton of the tradable goods and gold going East), like second class citizens. They then are surprised when said people treated like second class citizens don't rally their countries to face a threat THE BYZANTINES THEMSELVES have been stoking for generations. See [...] for the specifics.

        Absolute fricking morons

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sieges had this rule, and had it for millennia: if you surrender with terms, the city is spared the worst of it. If the city is taken by storm, all bets are off. Mehemet getting his soldiers back in line after 72 hours and declaring certain buildings off limits was actually pretty generous when it comes to sacks of capitals and wealthy cities. The 1204 sack was the more destructive one overall.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I hope Kurds liberate Eastern provinces of Turkey soon enough

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >a few decades later
    Dim drums throbbing, in the hills half heard,
    Where only on a nameless throne a crownless prince has stirred,
    Where, risen from a doubtful seat and half attainted stall,
    The last knight of Europe takes weapons from the wall,
    The last and lingering troubadour to whom the bird has sung,
    That once went singing southward when all the world was young,
    In that enormous silence, tiny and unafraid,
    Comes up along a winding road the noise of the Crusade.
    Strong gongs groaning as the guns boom far,
    Don John of Austria is going to the war,
    Stiff flags straining in the night-blasts cold
    In the gloom black-purple, in the glint old-gold,
    Torchlight crimson on the copper kettle-drums,
    Then the tuckets, then the trumpets, then the cannon, and he comes.
    Don John laughing in the brave beard curled,
    Spurning of his stirrups like the thrones of all the world,
    Holding his head up for a flag of all the free.
    Love-light of Spain, hurrah!
    Death-light of Africa!
    Don John of Austria
    Is riding to the sea.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In 1453? Most likely. But not long after.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    still scratching my head over how the Byzantines were able to be defeated even though they occupy one the most strategic and valuable pieces of real estate property in the world.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cannons

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cannons

      in some alternate universe, the Byzantines decided to shell out more shekels to buy cannons and fend off the roaches.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    by that point there was nothing they could do, it was a miracle they even held out as long as they could

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It depends. The extra building HP and cheaper trash units are pretty solid, and those cataphracts will absolutely murder infantry, but turks don't normally go for infantry anyway and that +2 range on their bombard cannons make them a real pain in the ass to deal with.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >le turkroach liberated the white city and made it cultural
    damn thats some hardcore shitskin propaganda

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is being raided by at least three Muslims, probably /misc/tards or PrepHolecels. They're using post-9/11 Islam apologia.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: atheists defend christianity

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yep it is sad to see morons who have never read a lick of theology fumbling around just for the sake of winning an Internet argument.
      Do you fast?
      If no the you are not a real Christian.
      Did you do drugs or/and have a tatoo no matter how small?
      If yes you are not a real Christian.
      Do you go to the church on Sundays EVERY FRICKING WEEK?
      If you dont you are not a real Christian.
      I could go on and on.
      Point is these morons larp on the net as Christians just to win political points(in their own heads) and live their life's indistinguishable from libtard prolife atheists drones outside their little net fantasy.
      Myself as a "real" Christian don't give a frick what the morons on the both sides of the argument have to say.
      I have 3 kids these net posers have zero and I will teach them my religion how my parents did for me and my 6 siblings.
      My way of life will perservere as God intended, simple as.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nuh uh homie

        catholics and orthogays need to shut the frick up

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Amen, just be a cool dude and remember that god gives a shit about all of us.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Give orban his money

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Chatholics actually had better lives and more religious freedom in Constantinople under the muzzies than they did they Filoque blashpheming heritics from the Vatican.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A Venetian Catholic Holy Roman elector and violent usurper was teaching a class on Pope Innocent III, known backstabbing sodomite. "Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship the Pope and accept that he is perfect in every way and even greater than Jesus Christ!"

    At this moment, a brave, Greek, Varangian Akrites who had killed over 1500 Normans and understood the necessity of the Massacre of the Latins stood up and held up a fresh Kaine Diatheke.

    "Who made this Testament, pinhead?”

    The treacherous Venetian smirked quite israelily and smugly replied “The Italian scribes, you stupid heretic."

    "Wrong. It’s been 1,000 years since Saint Paul wrote it in Greek in the holy city of Constantinople. If the Bible was, as you say, written by the israelites then why haven't you taken Jerusalem from the Muslims yet and made it your capital?"

    The Venetian backstabber was visibly shaken, and dropped his Rosary and copy of the Roman Missal. He stormed out of the room crying those Italian crocodile tears. The same tears Italians cry for the “poor Crusaders" (who today live in such luxury that most bathe daily) when they jealously try to claw justly earned land from the deserving Byzantines.There is no doubt that at this point our Elector, Urban III, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and refused the concillia after the seventh. He wished so much that he was free to be deposed by the Roman Emperor, but he himself had pledged himself to the German pretender!

    The students applauded and all followed Orthodoxy that day and accepted the Basileus of the Romans as Christ's Vicegerent on Earth. A double-headed eagle named “Rhomania” flew into the room and perched atop the Basilikon Phlamoulon and shed a tear. The Epitaph of Seikilos was sung several times, and Andronikos Komnenos himself showed up and converted all the Catholics into dead Catholics.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For starters, the Laskarids should have killed every last member of the Palaiologoi before they retook Constantinople from the Latins.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if given the chance, i would nuke Ankara to make a point.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Basill II fricks and raises a component Successor or takes on a protégé to succeed him.
    Not break into infighting Circa 1071 oh and get some actually loyal meres
    Don't fall into decades of civil war post 1071
    Reconstitute the state slightly so 1204 doesn't happen
    John Komnenos doesn't immediately abdicate and we get an early Alexios Emperor
    Really really avoid the 1204 Empire buck breaking crusade somehow

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They could have paid the mercenary with the city-busting cannons rather than let him go over to the Turks.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They couldn't have.
    Constantinople didn't fall in 1453, it fell in 1204. The crusaders ruined the empire.
    After that, it was a shell of its former self, with few alliances left.
    What happened in 1453 was an exchange of hands between Christian Anatolians and Muslim Anatolians (former Byzantines who had defected, became islamised, or hired as mercenaries).
    "Turks" (i.e. mongoloid tribes) have not been present in the area since about the year 400. The population of Anatolia was (and still is) a mixture of Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Arabs and Kurds.
    Mehmed the conqueror himself was half Greek, having been raised by a Greek mother, spoke and wrote fluent Greek and educated in classical Greek philosophy and literature.
    This whole "Christian Greeks versus Muslim Turks" thing is a LARP.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the real last chance for the Empire to regain the initiative was in 1341. The civil war which started that year caused dramatic loss of its remaining European holdings, and left it too weak to resist Ottoman occupation of Gallipoli in 1356. After this point it becomes entirely at the mercy of what foreign powers do, existing mainly at the pleasure of others. An exceptionally skilled ruler might have made something happen during the Ottoman Interregnum in 1402, but the resources to capitalise on it effectively weren't there.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ok but imagine if the variety of western european influences stuck around and continued to inspire the region. other than mosque that is what they venerate the most. they kill the other side of their ancestry daily. its like algeria or tunisia in denial about french cultures contributions on fricking steroids

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Their only chance was a complete military bailout by Latin Christendom, but that ship had effectively sailed with the Crusader defeat at Varna in 1444. By 1453 the Byzantines lacked the funds and manpower to hold such a strategic position on the Bosphorous, so their only chance was to beg a Catholic naval power would take them under their wing and keep the Turks stuck in Asia Minor.

  42. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how is it a liberation when it was never a turkish city in the first place? The Turks aren't even from Anatolia originally.

  43. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If we are talking just 1453 then they were actually quite close to defending it.
    >Giustiniani randomly dies causing panic
    >Ottomans move ships over land
    >Some gate was randomly left open

    Any of these didn't happen and the siege may have ended in a failure.
    The bigger issue is how the Byzantines recover from it all. Even with the Ottomans weakened, they would struggle to seize territory for themselves.
    There was a similar situation 50 years prior where the Turks had a civil war and the Byzantines gained some territory by siding with one party.

  44. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Constantinople under threat
    >Christians decide to infight instead of facing threat
    >Constantinople falls
    Centuries later
    >Thread on how to save Constantinople
    >Christians ignore thread question to infight
    >Thread falls
    History may not repeat, but it often rhymes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Christians decide to infight instead of facing threat
      They literally had 2 Crusades just to try and stop the Ottomans.
      Last one 9 years before Constantinople fell and it was almost a Crusader victory.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Come now, anyone who knows anything about the Crusades knows how every single one was undermined in some way by some combo of infighting, political intrigue, or lack of direction. Mecca and Medina would be Christian cities today if the Crusaders (and Byzies) had kept their shit together.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *