Soon

Europe abandoned the Byzantines and left them at the mercy of the Turks.

The only ones who should pay are the "Christian" traitors

>literally /pol/ with dates thread
I hate back to /pol/ meme but stop creating threads like this. You are only making them right.

If they have converted back to catholicism the europeans would have helped them to restore their empire, but they stubbornly remained in their heresy.

Also, the crusaders saved their empire during the first crusade but they sided with the muslims against the crusaders, so they deserved it their fate.

>Orthodoxy
>Heresy

It's called "orthodoxy" for a reason. The Papacy decided to drift away from that. A succesful heresy is still an heresy.

Fucking losers. They lost, get over it.

Well, if it makes Christians feel better, the Greeks have more of a claim on Istanbul then the Turks since the Greeks have had it for more years than the Turks.

So rightfully, the stronger claim should be the one to have it.

I surely hope no Stirnerfags come in here and start telling me what I said was a spook.

They literally did not. For a long time after the fall of constantinople retaking it was a very important subject and everyone was talking about in the courts of europe for a long time.

But those monarchs willing to side with the turk (the english and the french) won the internal struggle of western europe and still dominate it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_(emperor) the last illyrian emperor mutiny by Phocas who killed him and his family
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocas 602 - 610
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius 610 to 641 - start of heraclius dinasty (incest and shit )
He was responsible for introducing Greek as the Eastern Empire's official language. His rise to power began in 608, when he and his father, Heraclius the Elder, the exarch of Africa, led a revolt against the unpopular usurper Phocas. His father died shortly after Heraclius came in power .
Heraclius entered diplomatic relations with the Croats and Serbs in the Balkans. He tried to repair the schism in the Christian church in regard to the Monophysites,
by promoting a compromise doctrine called Monothelitism. The Church of the East (commonly called Nestorian) was also involved in the process.[4]
Eventually, however, this project of unity was rejected by all sides of the dispute.
Besides the Jacobite Church of Syria, the Armenian Church and the Coptic-Ethiopic Church are independent descendants of the Monophysite rite.
With all their interest in Greek learning the two estranged sister Syrian Churches of the East and the West arose and developed largely as a reaction of the Syrian society against the Hellenising influences of Byzantium and Rome.
Jacobitism and Nestorianism, while they professed different Christologies, were alike protests against foreign intrusion and the process of syncretism that was turning Christianity, historically a Syrian religion, into a Greco-Roman institution.

In 634-640, Syria was conquered by the Muslim Arabs in the form of the Rashidun army led by Khalid ibn al-Walid,

>I'm a retard the post
Better hand over all dem land to injuns and abos then

Phocas's rule was broadly welcomed at first because he lowered taxes, which had been high during the reign of Maurice. Fulsome letters of courtly praise from Pope Gregory I attest to this. The pope, Saint Gregory, appreciated his acceptance of the reforms he had begun. The agrarian reforms of the Church in Italy and particularly in Sicily had been followed in Egypt by the Orthodox Patriarchs. The reform consisted in naming "rectores" as administrators of the latifundia and eliminating contractors and parasitic middlemen who exploited the tenant farmers, reducing them to misery and undermining the incomes of the land owners.

who was pope Gregory ? why did he praise the mutineer ?

the results of history are set as they play out. Your pleading is not impressive.

There are people in Istanbul, native to istanbul, born on the clay, and they rightfully consider themselves Turkish. These people have the same claim to nativism that you do. But theirs is more recent, and more relevant because of this.

You can't undo the ottomans no matter how hard you fantasize. And the reality was that they were a net good for Europe.

The greeks are thieves and traitors

>better hand over all dem land to injuns and abos then
Aboriginals and natives aren't people, they're subhumans.

All I'm saying is that if we had to be fair about this, the Greeks have a stronger claim to own Istanbul. The Turks have a weaker claim even though they own it.

Understand, the Turks have been having it for around 500-600 years. The Greeks on the other hand, they've had that piece of clay for 3 times the number of years the Turks had it.

It is essentially, Greek land through and through under the occupation of Turkish authority.

Just because a bunch of niggers come in and take your house, the house that you built, and have lived in, and they says it's theirs doesn't mean it's necessarily it's theirs. It just means they've illegally taken over your house, even though you legitimately built it for yourself and only yourself.

Therefore they've taken your legitimate property which you yourself have sweated to build. This is theft, as taking it away from the original innocent owners who were HUMAN and not savages such as injuns and abos, deserve to have it back. It is an unalienable right to own the property built by your own hands and not forcefully taken ILLEGALLY by other human invaders.

If and when these other humans who illegally took this land from the original owner, own the land for more than the owner owned it, I suppose you could say it's theirs.

This doesn't apply to savages, such as niggers, injuns, and abbos, as they really don't have equal footing with humans, as I said before they are subhumans so they don't have rights to owning land.

And besides, abos, niggers, and injuns were mostly nomad hunter-gatherers anyways. They just USED the land, they never really intended to own it anyways. The niggers south of Northern Africa just migrated from place to place whenever there was food, the aboriginals of the Pacific Islands did the same thing, and most of the fucking injuns who belonged to the Iroquois Confederacy were also hunter-gatherers.

Long story short, primitive nomads don't have a right to own land.

mehmet, my son

>muh sentimentality
>muh fairness

The universe couldn't give two shits about winners or losers. "Homelands" are a sentimental lie used for political means. The Greeks have no claim to it, nor do the Turks. The Turks own it because they curb stomped the hilariously week Greeks; end of story.

I'm not talking about winners or losers you fucking faggot. I'm talking about the timeline allotted by which each of these people have claims on it.

That is Greek homeland, Istanbul was and still is Greek homeland, it is not a lie or a social construct as most of you college boys like to look at it. For example if you observe the architecture, it reminisces of a Greek past. They were the first humans to colonize that place. They have a very strong claim to it.

The Turks, on the other hand, also have a claim on it. But it's weak since they've only been on it for a fraction of the time the Greeks have been on it. They settled it once they destroyed the Greeks in that fatal battle of 1453, yes it was a fair and square conflict although illegal in terms of imposing their rule on a piece of cultured Greek land.

You and I think very differently, I see that, and you're probably a leftist due to your dissing of ethics and values.

I just wanted to put my opinion out there, that's all, no need to get hostile.

Homeland is exactly a social construct.

Yeah, well, your life is nothing but a social construct. Perhaps you should end it since it has obviously no value.

the greeks came in power in bizantium in 602 all the rest is lies .. they stole all the illyrian history made it their own .. Constatine was greek right ?