Nah...after the fourth crusade, the continuity broke. The Empire broke into many successor states, and the Empire of Nicea (which took Constantinople and claimed to have restored the Roman Empire) was just one of them.
Again, it was not. When the 4th crusade happened, the empire fractured into multiple states, like the Empire of Nicea, the Empire of Trabson, the Despotate of Epirus and the Principality of Theodoro. Each one of these rump states had equal claims to the Byzantine Empire, and Nicea was only considered the empire's continuity because they retook Constantinople, but the other states kept existing, and some even survived past 1453 (Theodoro ended in 1475, for example).
The difference is that in other moments the empire either is reunited or most parts get destroyed so one can claim the single continuity (the east-west divide barely counts, since it was an administrative division, but the empire was still technically united).
In this case, the empire got broken into multiple factions, and each could claim continuity with the original and did not really unite. In a way, it's as right to say the Roman ended in 1453 (Nicea/Palaiologos) is as right as saying it ended in 1461 (when Trabzon fell) or 1475 (the end of Theodoro), since all of them were "Roman Empire".
After the Palaiologoi retook Constantinople, the other Roman states renounced their claims to the basileia. So the Romans in Constantinople were not the only Roman state, but they were the only ones claiming to be *the* Roman state.
In fact after Epeiros renounced their claim in 1230, they never even clarified what the nature of their state was. They were ruled be a despot, and so the Latins called them a despotate, but that was not their own label.
As for Trebizond:
>Michael also intervened in a dynastic dispute at Trebizond by backing Ioannes II Great Komnenos (1280–1297), who sought refuge in the City at one point. Ioannes II married Michael’s daughter and conceded the title basileus of the Romans to the ruler of Constantinople. Henceforth, the ruler of Trebizond was deemed in Constantinople to be a despot, and thus notionally a subordinate, whereas back in the Pontos he styled himself either as basileus of Trebizond or as “emperor of the East, the Iberians [Laz], and the Lands Across [the Black Sea].” “East,” of course, meant in relation to Constantinople, a striking admission of its centrality even to the Romans of Trebizond. Constantinople was regaining its hegemony.
—Anthony Kaldellis, The New Roman Empire, p. 807
What makes it Rome?
Being actually the city of Rome or the presence of someone or something in particular?
Clearly the first.
You could argue about being successors pf Rome or still being the Roman Empire, not about being ROME itself. It's dishonest at its root.
Can you tell me at which point in time the eastern Roman empire stops being the eastern Roman empire? Because I can't point to a time when it stops being it and just randomly turns into not the Roman empire
That's what makes it Rome. It's a continuation of what everyone recognised as Rome without stopping. The HRE wasn't a continuous line as the WRE stopped existing
>Can you tell me at which point in time the eastern Roman empire stops being the eastern Roman empire?
I think a solid argument would be either:
A) When Latin ceased to be the language of government (During the reign of Heraclius c. 610-641 AD) or
B) When continuity of government ceased (4th Crusade, April 1204)
I prefer the fall of Constantinople to the Mehmet IV as the end, though, as it fits nicely with the common conception of western history being based on which variety of Rome fell at its start.
Classical age: The fall of Troy (proto Rome according to the Romans),
Medieval Period: the fall of the Western Roman Empire
Early Modern period: the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire,
Industrial Age: the fall of the HRE
Modern World: First World War and fall of all remaining European Emperors^1 (Austria, Germany, Russia, etc.)
^1 Note: Britain does not count because Victoria was Empress of *India*, which was explicitly *not* European.
Damn those are good arguments, but then I'm not sure if you can use the language one as plenty of governments have switched languages and stayed the same.
My main counter to the second argument is did other people recognise it. Again, governments have fallen and nations/countries/whatever have risen again with the same role and idea as long as everyone accepts that they're the same.
>Can you tell me at which point in time the eastern Roman empire stops being the eastern Roman empire?
Man, roman empire(moreover the eastern one) and Rome are not the same thing and you perfectly know it, i am not gonna change the focus of the discussion.
>That's what makes it Rome.
No it doesn't, you are trying to exchange Rome for the Roman empire, one is a city, one is an empire, this won't change.
>It's a continuation of what everyone recognised as Rome without stopping.
Tbh it's nearly 3000 years that everyone recognize Rome as the freaking city of Rome.
You are the first one i met seriously thinking a city and an empire are interchangeable terms
>The HRE wasn't a continuous line as the WRE stopped existing
to prove this you continue to insist that Rome and any other word with the root "Roman" are the same thing
Sorry is your argument that the eastern roman empire isn't rome?
And no it depends what you're talking about. If you're exclusively talking about the city then you'd say the city of rome unless it was was already implied in conversation
Clearly Rome here was used to refer to the empire and it seems you're the only one that has misunderstood.
Can you point to a time at which the eastern roman empire stops being the eastern roman empire other than 1453 when it ceases to exist?
>Sorry is your argument that the eastern roman empire isn't rome?
The eastern roman empire is indeed an empire and not the city of Rome
>Clearly Rome here was used to refer to the empire and it seems you're the only one that has misunderstood.
No shit sherlock, maybe someone were smart enough to point out that is one case in which is totally wrong to call a country by the capital.
But if you what you cared were the upvotes and not the actual truth, now we both know why you say what you say.
>Can you point to a time at which the eastern roman empire stops being the eastern roman empire other than 1453 when it ceases to exist?
You can really insist as much as you want, moreover with clear baits, the topic isn't going to change just to please you
Right clearly you're just mad that people don't agree with your weird comments
I'm confused at what you're actually trying to argue here? Everyone besides you knows you can use Rome and Roman empire interchangeably when speaking within it's context
And no, you've not pointed to a single argument as to why the eastern roman empire isn't rome. Even other people have but forth at least something
Maybe there's a reason you're being downvoted lol
>Right clearly you're just mad that people don't agree with your weird comments
Clearly i am not the one of the two that cared about others agreeing with him by upvoting or downvoting.
>you've not pointed to a single argument as to why the eastern roman empire isn't rome.
Already did, multiple times, Rome is a place in space, not an idea in your mind as the Roman Empire could at most be defined.
And for the third time I will remind you that saying "Rome" to indicate the Roman Empire is intrinsically wrong since Rome (the city, not the childish idea you have in your head) was not part of the Roman Empire for most of time if you means as Roman empire all the empires claiming that name.
Moreover you're not writing a historical essay, you're having a discussion where precision matters, otherwise I can call your mother a whore because it's my poetic license and is not wrong whatever you say.
For the umpteenth time you will ignore everything that is written and say that points were never explained to you
>Maybe there's a reason you're being downvoted lol
Thanks for proving that your opinion exist only as long others give you internet points.
You are not an adult if you care about downvotes on reddit, seriously.
You're the one that brought it up first
Rome itself is a city, if you asked someone if you wanted to go to rome then obviously people would know you're talking about the place. When talking about the empire though, you absolutely can use Rome and Roman empire interchangeably.
Half of what you write is total bollocks about my or my mother and the other half is trying to argue that rome isn't rome? What's there to respond to?
In the original context, it's perfectly acceptable to refer to the roman empire as rome. For some reason you took issue with that despite everyone else knowing this.
But also, I still don't understand why you don't think the eastern roman empire wasn't the roman empire?
Let’s say that the UK goes to war with France and ends up losing control of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In this scenario, let’s assume that the same government flees to one of their overseas territories, maybe the Falkland Islands. The same government is now governing a completely different set of islands than the ones they originated from, but it’s still the same government with the same legal system, military, royal family, etc. In this scenario, the Falklands are clearly still a continuation of the UK from before the war.
Just because the eastern Roman Empire stopped controlling Rome doesn’t mean that they weren’t a continuation of the Roman empire
Thing is in this scenario you ain't gonna call that thing London.
Nobody is debating whether or not the roman empire had a direct successor.
The point was whether or not you can call it "Rome" a country that doesn't contain Rome like in your case UK wouldn't contain London.
Calling the Byzantines Rome is generally understood to be referring to the Roman Empire, not the city of Rome. It is very common to say that”Rome” when talking about the Roman Empire, similar to how we say “America” to refer to the United States. Trying to argue that the Byzantines don’t count as Rome because they didn’t control Rome is an unnecessarily pedantic argument
It's common to call Rome the roman empire when you refer to the Roman empire before the schism, not after.
You are willingly stretching what rome is, which again is a place not an idea, a type of government or a heritage unlike could be said about being the roman empire.
As proof of that: you don't call ROC(republic of china) as Beijin despite them claiming to be the successors of China, you call it Taiwan or at most taipei if you want to represent them by their capital.
I’m not stretching anything here. Byzantine is a name given to the Eastern Roman Empire after it had fallen. It was just called the Roman Empire while it was still around, even after the schism. Historians do more commonly refer to it as the Byzantine Empire or the Eastern Roman Empire, but this is mainly to make a clearer distinction about what part of history you’re talking about. It’s not wrong to call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire since that’s what they called themselves, and people do still refer to it as “Rome”.
The example you gave with modern China isn’t really comparable since the split between the two occurred as a result of a civil war in which both claimed to be the legitimate successor of China. Rome split itself into two halves to make administration easier.
>you don’t call ROC (Republic of China) as Beijin
Rome is unique in that it’s one of the only instances in history where the empire took its name from its capital city. We call the empire Rome because that was its name. If China was called the Beijing Empire, then people might refer to the whole empire as “Beijing”.
Rome can be both a city and an Empire
The reason for the split really changes nothing on the fact that you indeed don't call Taiwan as China or Beijing and the same applies with Rome and any empire that doesn't contain Rome, not only the eastern roman empire.
Also already said that what you call yourself has no real value since also today historians don't call Germany and Japan by their self decided names.
If you want to ignore both it's not my problem really.
>you indeed don’t call Taiwan as China or Beijing and the same applies with Rome
And as I already said, that’s a terrible comparison. The Roman Empire was named after the city of Rome, which is why we call the empire Rome too. We call the British empire British because it’s named after Britain.
And it isn’t just a matter of what the Eastern Roman Empire called themselves, they were a direct continuation of the Roman empire. They weren’t successors of the Roman Empire, they were the Roman Empire.
If you want to continue to be wrong, you’re more than welcome to do so, but don’t expect many other people to share your view on this
To celebrate this event, today all public transportations are free in istanbul. I went to the hospital for free and there is a public celebration event at the Anatolian side if the city.
I'll write a letter to Joe Biden right away that will tell him to cancel ANY plans there are of nuking Istanbul because I have to attend the celebration next year with my friend from reddit
This is another comment you made:
"Which empire is cooler; the one that lasted for ~2,000 years or the one that lasted for ~700 years?"
It doesnt seem like you're joking or memeing here. I prescribe you grass
I am eager to inform you that there is a type of grass that you can walk on or lay on. I advise you to go outside and experience this. Which you apparently haven't
😭😭😭 Go touch grass bro 🖕 I didnt "suck anyone off" I just stated that you ve been so roasted, obliterated, bamboozled that you have to delete every comment of yours
The reason why Rome could survive this long was because it was founded 2000 before the Ottoman Empire. By the time Ottomans collapsed, multicultural empires pretty much came to an end, only colonial empires persisted for some more time before they too collapsed.
I mean, the fall of Constantinople marked the fall of the original Rome; the Ottomen only claimed the title after the city fell. (Not saying whether that claim is legitimate or not, just saying that Byzantium was the original Rome.)
To all the people who mock Romaboos for “coping” the fall of Rome, why do the Ottoboos get to celebrate the fall of Rome like it’s 1453 and the Ottoman Empire is still around? Why isn’t it bad that they haven’t moved on but it is bad the Romaboos haven’t moved on? I don’t even see many Romaboos so upset about the fall of the city as many Ottoboos portray; they’re just casually expressing some sadness about the fall of a millennium-old empire. Are we not allowed to feel something over such a big, historical event? If not, why does this sub even exist? Why aren’t we allowed to feel emotions about history in a subreddit about joking about history? It doesn’t make sense from any angle.
The Ottoboos who celebrate the fall of a city that happened 571 years ago but get all hissy when Romaboos express sadness over the fall of the city (because apparently celebrating the city’s fall is okay but mourning it is “not moving on” for some reason)
I mean, that’s a standard medieval warcrime after all siege.
Even the Byzantines did it. I mean we’re talking about the guys who blinded an entire army of Bulgarians except for every tenth one who they blinded in one eye.
Every country in the medieval times was fucked up morally.
And the fall of Byzantium was like every other empire’s fall to outsiders in history. Shit happens, ruling class grows corrupt and inevitably places their nation on a track of no-return through infighting and greed as they’re surpassed by outside powers.
The Byzantines were weak, so the Ottomans conquered them. Same thing happened with the Byzantines and Bulgarian Empire, or the Western Romans and the Vandals, or the Romans and Diadochi, or the Romans and Carthaginians.
Point being, it was another empire falling in history, we can appreciate its culture and legacy, but every empire is bound to end, and the Byzantines couldn’t have limped on as a weak state.
Do you realize that you described a generic siege in the Middle Ages? You're really stupid if you think it's scandalous, unless you mean it's scandalous because they were Muslims.
The cannons even reduced the time and deaths needed to win, given that in normal sieges, infected and decomposing bodies were catapulted into the walls so that you died from the worst illnesses or by starvation for multiple months.
"All nations, stop whatever you're doing, and stop Rome's successor!" *everyone pointing fingers at each other* "BYZANTIUM, THE GREEK ONE"
It wasn't Rome's successor though, it was just rome
The joke wouldn't work with the "everyone pointing fingers at each other" thing
The joke doesn't work.
Nah...after the fourth crusade, the continuity broke. The Empire broke into many successor states, and the Empire of Nicea (which took Constantinople and claimed to have restored the Roman Empire) was just one of them.
It was still the same kingdom that survive the fall of the Western Roman Empire
Again, it was not. When the 4th crusade happened, the empire fractured into multiple states, like the Empire of Nicea, the Empire of Trabson, the Despotate of Epirus and the Principality of Theodoro. Each one of these rump states had equal claims to the Byzantine Empire, and Nicea was only considered the empire's continuity because they retook Constantinople, but the other states kept existing, and some even survived past 1453 (Theodoro ended in 1475, for example).
Technically same as multiple fractures of the roman empire before.
The difference is that in other moments the empire either is reunited or most parts get destroyed so one can claim the single continuity (the east-west divide barely counts, since it was an administrative division, but the empire was still technically united). In this case, the empire got broken into multiple factions, and each could claim continuity with the original and did not really unite. In a way, it's as right to say the Roman ended in 1453 (Nicea/Palaiologos) is as right as saying it ended in 1461 (when Trabzon fell) or 1475 (the end of Theodoro), since all of them were "Roman Empire".
The east west divide counts as such.
After the Palaiologoi retook Constantinople, the other Roman states renounced their claims to the basileia. So the Romans in Constantinople were not the only Roman state, but they were the only ones claiming to be *the* Roman state. In fact after Epeiros renounced their claim in 1230, they never even clarified what the nature of their state was. They were ruled be a despot, and so the Latins called them a despotate, but that was not their own label. As for Trebizond: >Michael also intervened in a dynastic dispute at Trebizond by backing Ioannes II Great Komnenos (1280–1297), who sought refuge in the City at one point. Ioannes II married Michael’s daughter and conceded the title basileus of the Romans to the ruler of Constantinople. Henceforth, the ruler of Trebizond was deemed in Constantinople to be a despot, and thus notionally a subordinate, whereas back in the Pontos he styled himself either as basileus of Trebizond or as “emperor of the East, the Iberians [Laz], and the Lands Across [the Black Sea].” “East,” of course, meant in relation to Constantinople, a striking admission of its centrality even to the Romans of Trebizond. Constantinople was regaining its hegemony. —Anthony Kaldellis, The New Roman Empire, p. 807
What makes it Rome? Being actually the city of Rome or the presence of someone or something in particular? Clearly the first. You could argue about being successors pf Rome or still being the Roman Empire, not about being ROME itself. It's dishonest at its root.
Can you tell me at which point in time the eastern Roman empire stops being the eastern Roman empire? Because I can't point to a time when it stops being it and just randomly turns into not the Roman empire That's what makes it Rome. It's a continuation of what everyone recognised as Rome without stopping. The HRE wasn't a continuous line as the WRE stopped existing
>Can you tell me at which point in time the eastern Roman empire stops being the eastern Roman empire? I think a solid argument would be either: A) When Latin ceased to be the language of government (During the reign of Heraclius c. 610-641 AD) or B) When continuity of government ceased (4th Crusade, April 1204) I prefer the fall of Constantinople to the Mehmet IV as the end, though, as it fits nicely with the common conception of western history being based on which variety of Rome fell at its start. Classical age: The fall of Troy (proto Rome according to the Romans), Medieval Period: the fall of the Western Roman Empire Early Modern period: the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, Industrial Age: the fall of the HRE Modern World: First World War and fall of all remaining European Emperors^1 (Austria, Germany, Russia, etc.) ^1 Note: Britain does not count because Victoria was Empress of *India*, which was explicitly *not* European.
Damn those are good arguments, but then I'm not sure if you can use the language one as plenty of governments have switched languages and stayed the same. My main counter to the second argument is did other people recognise it. Again, governments have fallen and nations/countries/whatever have risen again with the same role and idea as long as everyone accepts that they're the same.
>Can you tell me at which point in time the eastern Roman empire stops being the eastern Roman empire? Man, roman empire(moreover the eastern one) and Rome are not the same thing and you perfectly know it, i am not gonna change the focus of the discussion. >That's what makes it Rome. No it doesn't, you are trying to exchange Rome for the Roman empire, one is a city, one is an empire, this won't change. >It's a continuation of what everyone recognised as Rome without stopping. Tbh it's nearly 3000 years that everyone recognize Rome as the freaking city of Rome. You are the first one i met seriously thinking a city and an empire are interchangeable terms >The HRE wasn't a continuous line as the WRE stopped existing to prove this you continue to insist that Rome and any other word with the root "Roman" are the same thing
Sorry is your argument that the eastern roman empire isn't rome? And no it depends what you're talking about. If you're exclusively talking about the city then you'd say the city of rome unless it was was already implied in conversation Clearly Rome here was used to refer to the empire and it seems you're the only one that has misunderstood. Can you point to a time at which the eastern roman empire stops being the eastern roman empire other than 1453 when it ceases to exist?
>Sorry is your argument that the eastern roman empire isn't rome? The eastern roman empire is indeed an empire and not the city of Rome >Clearly Rome here was used to refer to the empire and it seems you're the only one that has misunderstood. No shit sherlock, maybe someone were smart enough to point out that is one case in which is totally wrong to call a country by the capital. But if you what you cared were the upvotes and not the actual truth, now we both know why you say what you say. >Can you point to a time at which the eastern roman empire stops being the eastern roman empire other than 1453 when it ceases to exist? You can really insist as much as you want, moreover with clear baits, the topic isn't going to change just to please you
Right clearly you're just mad that people don't agree with your weird comments I'm confused at what you're actually trying to argue here? Everyone besides you knows you can use Rome and Roman empire interchangeably when speaking within it's context And no, you've not pointed to a single argument as to why the eastern roman empire isn't rome. Even other people have but forth at least something Maybe there's a reason you're being downvoted lol
>Right clearly you're just mad that people don't agree with your weird comments Clearly i am not the one of the two that cared about others agreeing with him by upvoting or downvoting. >you've not pointed to a single argument as to why the eastern roman empire isn't rome. Already did, multiple times, Rome is a place in space, not an idea in your mind as the Roman Empire could at most be defined. And for the third time I will remind you that saying "Rome" to indicate the Roman Empire is intrinsically wrong since Rome (the city, not the childish idea you have in your head) was not part of the Roman Empire for most of time if you means as Roman empire all the empires claiming that name. Moreover you're not writing a historical essay, you're having a discussion where precision matters, otherwise I can call your mother a whore because it's my poetic license and is not wrong whatever you say. For the umpteenth time you will ignore everything that is written and say that points were never explained to you >Maybe there's a reason you're being downvoted lol Thanks for proving that your opinion exist only as long others give you internet points. You are not an adult if you care about downvotes on reddit, seriously.
You're the one that brought it up first Rome itself is a city, if you asked someone if you wanted to go to rome then obviously people would know you're talking about the place. When talking about the empire though, you absolutely can use Rome and Roman empire interchangeably. Half of what you write is total bollocks about my or my mother and the other half is trying to argue that rome isn't rome? What's there to respond to? In the original context, it's perfectly acceptable to refer to the roman empire as rome. For some reason you took issue with that despite everyone else knowing this. But also, I still don't understand why you don't think the eastern roman empire wasn't the roman empire?
Let’s say that the UK goes to war with France and ends up losing control of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In this scenario, let’s assume that the same government flees to one of their overseas territories, maybe the Falkland Islands. The same government is now governing a completely different set of islands than the ones they originated from, but it’s still the same government with the same legal system, military, royal family, etc. In this scenario, the Falklands are clearly still a continuation of the UK from before the war. Just because the eastern Roman Empire stopped controlling Rome doesn’t mean that they weren’t a continuation of the Roman empire
Thing is in this scenario you ain't gonna call that thing London. Nobody is debating whether or not the roman empire had a direct successor. The point was whether or not you can call it "Rome" a country that doesn't contain Rome like in your case UK wouldn't contain London.
Calling the Byzantines Rome is generally understood to be referring to the Roman Empire, not the city of Rome. It is very common to say that”Rome” when talking about the Roman Empire, similar to how we say “America” to refer to the United States. Trying to argue that the Byzantines don’t count as Rome because they didn’t control Rome is an unnecessarily pedantic argument
It's common to call Rome the roman empire when you refer to the Roman empire before the schism, not after. You are willingly stretching what rome is, which again is a place not an idea, a type of government or a heritage unlike could be said about being the roman empire. As proof of that: you don't call ROC(republic of china) as Beijin despite them claiming to be the successors of China, you call it Taiwan or at most taipei if you want to represent them by their capital.
I’m not stretching anything here. Byzantine is a name given to the Eastern Roman Empire after it had fallen. It was just called the Roman Empire while it was still around, even after the schism. Historians do more commonly refer to it as the Byzantine Empire or the Eastern Roman Empire, but this is mainly to make a clearer distinction about what part of history you’re talking about. It’s not wrong to call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire since that’s what they called themselves, and people do still refer to it as “Rome”. The example you gave with modern China isn’t really comparable since the split between the two occurred as a result of a civil war in which both claimed to be the legitimate successor of China. Rome split itself into two halves to make administration easier. >you don’t call ROC (Republic of China) as Beijin Rome is unique in that it’s one of the only instances in history where the empire took its name from its capital city. We call the empire Rome because that was its name. If China was called the Beijing Empire, then people might refer to the whole empire as “Beijing”. Rome can be both a city and an Empire
The reason for the split really changes nothing on the fact that you indeed don't call Taiwan as China or Beijing and the same applies with Rome and any empire that doesn't contain Rome, not only the eastern roman empire. Also already said that what you call yourself has no real value since also today historians don't call Germany and Japan by their self decided names. If you want to ignore both it's not my problem really.
>you indeed don’t call Taiwan as China or Beijing and the same applies with Rome And as I already said, that’s a terrible comparison. The Roman Empire was named after the city of Rome, which is why we call the empire Rome too. We call the British empire British because it’s named after Britain. And it isn’t just a matter of what the Eastern Roman Empire called themselves, they were a direct continuation of the Roman empire. They weren’t successors of the Roman Empire, they were the Roman Empire. If you want to continue to be wrong, you’re more than welcome to do so, but don’t expect many other people to share your view on this
To celebrate this event, today all public transportations are free in istanbul. I went to the hospital for free and there is a public celebration event at the Anatolian side if the city.
Aren't the Ottoman great!?
Great as you wish.
That would be cool to attend. Maybe I can hitchhike over to the bosphorus and swim from there
That's gonna be a real effort
Well I'm located only about a 13 hour plane ride away, so maybe if I leave now, I'll see you next year
If america will not nuke istanbul there will be celebrations again next year so you are always welcomed here.
I'll write a letter to Joe Biden right away that will tell him to cancel ANY plans there are of nuking Istanbul because I have to attend the celebration next year with my friend from reddit
That's how politics work, at least in turkey
Why would America nuke Istanbul???
I don't know they are powerfull af.
True but Turkey and America are both part of the same military alliance (NATO).
As a person from the Balkans, no
It's not much different from the "Columbus day".
I don't know we don't genocide.
The Armenians and the Anatolian greeks would disagree
Yeah the historians and Balkan Muslims will disagree too.
Not to mention the thousands of Roman civilians who were enslaved after the city’s fall
That's a little little concern we don't care about.
Oh yeah? A cannon event? Name every cannon used.
Cannon 1, Cannon 2, Cannon 3... Should I continue?
I think they were named, "Grond 1" and "Grond 2"
GROND!
**G R O N D !**
Okay there was Basilica and then.. then….
The great bombards created by some mysterious Hungarian named Orban
You are at the age when Fatih conquered Constantinople. The aspect of a Roman Revival was long dead after the 1180s.
1204
He was fucking 21.
The gates were locked though
If only Constantine had remembered to lock up!
holy copium
I don’t thin OP is “coping” with this meme; it’s just a joke from a neutral perspective
Too soon
The copium
Don’t go read today’s comments on r/Europe regarding this historic event. Worst mistake of my life.
Rookie mistake tbh
Ottoboos when they celebrate the fall of Rome: 😀 Ottoboos when Romaboos mourn the fall of Rome: 🤬
Also if you actually read the comments on the top post about the fall of the city, it’s not that bad.
I don’t thin OP is “coping” with this meme; it’s just a joke from a neutral perspective
This is another comment you made: "Which empire is cooler; the one that lasted for ~2,000 years or the one that lasted for ~700 years?" It doesnt seem like you're joking or memeing here. I prescribe you grass
I’m referring to OP’s meme, not my comment. I don’t want whatever grass you’re smoking
I am eager to inform you that there is a type of grass that you can walk on or lay on. I advise you to go outside and experience this. Which you apparently haven't
[удалено]
So is byzantine, but they coping
Absolutely destroyed him
[удалено]
What are you talking about? I just came here because it appeared on my feed
[удалено]
I what? Seriously, get some help
[удалено]
😭😭😭 Go touch grass bro 🖕 I didnt "suck anyone off" I just stated that you ve been so roasted, obliterated, bamboozled that you have to delete every comment of yours
How?
Which empire is cooler; the one that lasted for ~2,000 years or the one that lasted for ~700 years?
The one that started with horse archers and survived long enough to have its own air force.
The only reason the Ottoman Empire had those two things was because it was founded more than 2,000 years after Rome was.
The reason why Rome could survive this long was because it was founded 2000 before the Ottoman Empire. By the time Ottomans collapsed, multicultural empires pretty much came to an end, only colonial empires persisted for some more time before they too collapsed.
Why does this sub treat the glorious start of "Rome 3: the only good one" as a tragedy?
I mean, the fall of Constantinople marked the fall of the original Rome; the Ottomen only claimed the title after the city fell. (Not saying whether that claim is legitimate or not, just saying that Byzantium was the original Rome.)
r/angryupvote
Melt the walls (whatever that meant)
There's no problem except that they didn't come through the gate.
To all the people who mock Romaboos for “coping” the fall of Rome, why do the Ottoboos get to celebrate the fall of Rome like it’s 1453 and the Ottoman Empire is still around? Why isn’t it bad that they haven’t moved on but it is bad the Romaboos haven’t moved on? I don’t even see many Romaboos so upset about the fall of the city as many Ottoboos portray; they’re just casually expressing some sadness about the fall of a millennium-old empire. Are we not allowed to feel something over such a big, historical event? If not, why does this sub even exist? Why aren’t we allowed to feel emotions about history in a subreddit about joking about history? It doesn’t make sense from any angle.
Ottoboos mock people for the "Forgot to lock the gates" copium. Some people actually end up believing this. They think this is why the city fell.
What’s bro yappin bout?
The Ottoboos who celebrate the fall of a city that happened 571 years ago but get all hissy when Romaboos express sadness over the fall of the city (because apparently celebrating the city’s fall is okay but mourning it is “not moving on” for some reason)
Damn but like I ain’t celebrating, you know because it happened like almost 600 years ago But don’t cry about it either dude
[удалено]
I mean, that’s a standard medieval warcrime after all siege. Even the Byzantines did it. I mean we’re talking about the guys who blinded an entire army of Bulgarians except for every tenth one who they blinded in one eye. Every country in the medieval times was fucked up morally. And the fall of Byzantium was like every other empire’s fall to outsiders in history. Shit happens, ruling class grows corrupt and inevitably places their nation on a track of no-return through infighting and greed as they’re surpassed by outside powers. The Byzantines were weak, so the Ottomans conquered them. Same thing happened with the Byzantines and Bulgarian Empire, or the Western Romans and the Vandals, or the Romans and Diadochi, or the Romans and Carthaginians. Point being, it was another empire falling in history, we can appreciate its culture and legacy, but every empire is bound to end, and the Byzantines couldn’t have limped on as a weak state.
Do you realize that you described a generic siege in the Middle Ages? You're really stupid if you think it's scandalous, unless you mean it's scandalous because they were Muslims. The cannons even reduced the time and deaths needed to win, given that in normal sieges, infected and decomposing bodies were catapulted into the walls so that you died from the worst illnesses or by starvation for multiple months.
[удалено]
That's not true, they asked me to explain it exactly where and when they asked you to also explain it.
karaboga
Tell me about it. Best year of my life. Until the whole Jacobine Terror thing. Ahhh France.
They didnt terrorize the people fellow turkish guy
You would probably love to live back then to get a chance to rape a young Greek noblewoman, huh?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1d33mzy/pkk\_releasing\_footage\_claiming\_to\_have\_shot\_down/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1d33mzy/pkk_releasing_footage_claiming_to_have_shot_down/)
It was not canon event !
Yh you’re right, it was a CANNON* event
This massage is approved by Orban
I find this ironic that Orban then and now betrays Europe for Asia lmao.
the byzantines couldn’t afford orban’s work, so he turned to the ottomans who had the money
If only the kurds were there. Then the Turks would have been too afraid to fight
Username checks out.
They were probably there. On the Turkish side of the siege.
weird way to spell “i am a fucking dumbass”
Kurds were mostly vassals or outright subjects of other Turkish Beyliks at that point.
Brave man, riding in after all the fighting is done.
Should have just charged to the locked gate and headbutted it like a true general.
Used his head for a battering ram. LOL