The Ottoman Empire did anything wrong

>Held Rome

So are the Goths and the Lombards more legitimate Roman heirs than the eastern Roman empire?

>A stabilizing factor in the balkans/middle east would've been pretty fucking nice in the 20th and 21st century.

Being on Veeky Forums, I have to assume that you know of the Ottomans getting their ass kicked for the entirety of the 19th century.

The ERE also held Rome and was officially divided by the Roman emperor Diocletian. They have the most legitimate claim as an heir of Rome, followed by the HRE and then Russia.

There's a map displaying that the literacy rates in the Turkish part of Balkans were completely abysmal and 3rd world compared to Austrian/Hungarian parts but I can't find it right now, maybe someone else has it.

>look at me
>i am rome now

The "Byzantine Empire" is the Roman Empire, there is no "heir" or anything to the Roman Empire. If anything, the Russian Empire would have been the closest thing.. and the Rothschild Jews killed that.

>proclaimed the HRE

>proclaimed (you)

exactly

Easy there Alexandros. Remember Greeks were the greatest compliers with the Empire. Greeks are good Ottomans historically.

>Rome had anything to do with an ethnic identity and wasnt just an ideal

easy there

except it wasnt "Rome" when they held it. The Ottoman Empire seized Istanbul when it was literally the capital of the Roman Empire

>The Balkans ever being worse than it is now

>Implying the Balkans and Middle East Wouldnt have been better ruled by Ataturk instead of by your fake nationalities

>

Aside from the Armeanian Genocide

Yes, that's why I figure it was assumed in the statement "didn't collapse" that the whole... collapsing thing didn't happen.

see

>durr Istanbul is more Rome then Rome hurr
>Turks be da true Romans not dem Greeks who held Rome

get the fuck out of here you shitposter. worst of all this bullshit is

>the Balkans and Middle East Wouldnt have been better ruled by Ataturk instead of by your fake nationalities

do you live in a fucking fantasy world? have you read a single fucking book about the nationist struggles of all the different peoples in the balkans? do you fucking think they would let some fuckwit rule them, no matter who they were? WOW get the fuck out of here and read a book

>look at me
>i always was the roman empire
>there is no difference

>The Balkans ever being worse than it is now

Several magnitudes worse, actually. And besides, how come countries just north of the Balkans like Hungary, Austria or Bohemia didn't end up being such a steaming pile of shit while those that remained Ottoman well into 19th century were horrible?

>modern
>industialised
>no serfdom
>no muslim overlords
>no discriminatory tax system

mm much worse than 400 years ago...

Your argument is retarded. Its literally
>This non "Roman" ethnic group is more Roman than this non Roman ethnic group.

At least the Ottomans never pretended to be ethnically actual Romans. They were Roman in the sense that they were the true representatives of the ideals of Rome.

t. Mehmet

>Easy there Alexandros. Remember Greeks were the greatest compliers with the Empire. Greeks are good Ottomans historically.
Yes, second to rebel, such great "compliers".

>Implying the Balkans and Middle East Wouldnt have been better ruled by Ataturk instead of by your fake nationalities

You know Turks are by far more fake, correct? a culturally brainwashed people.

Easy there Serb. Zero substance in your emotional argument. I state facts. You cry

>my fantasies are facts

lmao fuck off siptar

Well technically yes. Greeks and Romans were relatively similar and related. The Turks are descended from nomads from the Asian steppes who intermingled with the various local people of Anatolia and the Middle East. How ever my main argument isn't over ethnics. It's about actually having the city of Rome itself.

>Due to instability and invasion, the capital gets moved to Byzantion and renamed Constantinople after Constantine the Great. approximately 160 years later the severe territorial losses happen, including Rome, with various provinces being gained and lost in the following centuries.
>Roman Empire still intact.
>Getting an arm and leg amputated means that you are no longer user Smith
>This is what HREfags actually believe

>Yes, second to rebel, such great "compliers".
Are you so ignorant that you dont know that Greeks were literally the MAIN administrators and bureaucrats of the Ottoman Empire? Ever heard of a guy named Hayreddin Barbarosa? Literally one of the greatest Ottoman commanders was greek... cmon. They were good servants to the empire.

pic related

>You know Turks are by far more fake, correct? a culturally brainwashed people.
Being a Turk is just that. Its an identity rooted in the cultures and customs of the Turkic people. Greeks, Armenians, all those other fake cultures all made great Turks. The Turkish identity is similar to the Roman identity in that anyone of a different ethnic group could become one of them by behaving like one and identifying as one. Its why the Ottomans were some of the greatest successors to Rome. The identities were easily synthesized.

You still havent given me any facts Slav

Nevermind, I found the picture. You can actually see the ex-Ottoman borders just by noticing all the illiterates.

/thread

Calm down guys

Lol didn't conquer Rome itself or any other parts of Italy.

/thread

sage

Ottomans were backwards as fuck.

ROMA INVICTA ROMA INVICTA

It's like the image of Polish railways.

Alright you fags, it's time for a reality check.

The successor of Rome is, objectively...

The City of Rome.

Get the fuck over it and move to another thread.

WE WUZ ROMANZ 'N SHIET

turks are disgusting.

I don't get why capturing a decrepit city well past its prime is a requirement, or why Russia seems to bypass this requirement in the eyes of so many people.

That said I'd argue the the papacy inherited the western empire (and turned it into catholic christendom) while the Ottomans inherited the eastern empire. I'd also say the eastern empire was more worthy of being called "rome" after the western empire's fall anyway.

Turks are the only reason why Anatolia is not a debt-ridden 3rd world shithole today.

Those butthurt shitskins in the Balkans should be thankful that we gave them civilization in the first place.

The world would be a thousand times better if the Ottoman Empire was not carved up by the western imperialists, the Balkans and the Middle East would be as prosperous as Turkey and there wouldn't be any African-tier ethnic warfare.

As for Arm*nian monkeys, who cares about them, it's just pest control.

I think the Balkans would remain shit to this day even if the Ottoman Empire (if we would could call it that at during the Modern Era) had control over them.

Eastern Europe in general was never really as prosperous or great as Western Europe, and I think for that reason it would've always remained a shithole.

As for the Ottoman Empire's existence over the Middle East, it would've been GREATLY helpful in destroying any chance of a Middle Eastern Crisis or even the creating the mistake of Israel.

Indeed, if the Ottoman Empire still existed, ISIS wouldn't have existed. This is where the Western powers fucked up when they carved it up at the time.

They should've never carved it up.

It's easy to say that now, but for all we know if they didn't you could have some ascendant Ottoman empire bullying Europe and everyone would be saying "I wish we carved them up when we had the chance."

>Turks
>Calling Europeans shitskins

You've never seen a Greek, have you?

Those hairy brown greasy monkeys are only matched in ugliness by the Armenians.

No, I don't think the Ottomans would bully Yurop for that long. They had a shit industry by the 1900s and everything there was going through a down turn.

However, if it survived even that, we wouldn't have to deal with terrorists, like I said before. So the Ottoman Empire would've been good in that regard.

Ofc if you want to get rid of it, atleast leave the Middle East alone after that. Don't go drawing up maps for them like the Brits did or giving the Jews, Israel.

The Brits fucked up this world so hard for themselves, and they never paid a single price for it.

Yes I've seen a Greek person before. He was of average height, had brown hair and fair skin who tanned easily during the summer. Your doing saying false statements either because they fit your world view or you're stupid enough to be duped by other idiots on the Internet who cherry pick images they see online.

Good post

Unironically turkey is far more of a shithole than any other balkan country

t. Giorgi Popadopodopulus

Go back to selling your sister's body for sandwiches.

>the ottomans purposefully kept the balkans underdeveloped and prevented any social or technological advance for centuries because it suited their tax system which was based on grain exploited from peasants

To be fair, that happened a lot outside of the Ottoman Empire, too. The Hansa and Russian/Polish elite kept Eastern Europe in serfdom to feed the grain trade in the Baltic, the Northern Italian city-states and Spain kept Southern Italy agrarian and backwards for the same reason, and so on.

>Greeks and Romans were relatively similar and related
No they were not. There were deep divides between the two and they rarely saw eye to eye. The Romans respected certain Greek cultural pursuits and legacies but they despised the Greeks as a people and saw them as inferior and without restraint, good slave material. If anything the Romans merely appropriated Greek culture (something which was not easily done since many Romans strongly objected to replacing or influencing Roman culture with Greek culture)

As for this thread: What made Rome Rome were ideals, laws, cultural legacies and innovations, not people. However you cannot argue that the Ottomans nor the Russians nor the HRE were anywhere near being successors to Rome. The Byzantines can be considered Roman because they inherited directly the territory of ancient Rome without any break in tradition. There was no transfer of power, no absorption of territory or conquest, only continuation. The same can not be said for any of the "successor" states which merely try to lay claim to translatio imperiii for privilege and propaganda reasons.

The Europeans might've carved up the Ottomans but they'd never had succeeded without ethnic nationalism.

It was inevitable

Nobody is a successor to Rome. Rome died when dictators turned it into a private apparatus designed only to keep tyrants in power.

The Ottomans basically fucked the balkans for good. Hungary was a cultural and economic powerhouse before the Ottomans came and ruined it, in the process bankrupting themselves just for the personal glory of fat, stupid sultans.

The Ottoman empire was shit, it didn't build anything lasting or worthwhile.

I'm from Kosovo. Historians always make the point that the Austrians buit rail systems while the Ottomans did nothing. Just a difference in styles of conquering. Besides we have a saying here: "Don't sit on your hands like an Ottoman".

Greeks had so many rebellions that only the elite class of Phanariotes and others had it well with the Porte,because of their administrative skills,diplomacy and wealth.they complied,the local people in anatolian coast and mainland greece were anti-ottoman as fuck.especially in the isles and in urban centers like Thessaloniki and Constantinople,the greeks who were almost a third of the population only advertised themselves as good subjects od the Sultan.

The term turk was a resentful one in ottoman period.only in the late 19th century it came to prominence.Ottoman title of citizenship was bestowed only to the upper classes of the Sultanate,turks and christians alike.the Christians and esp greeks who sided with the Ottoman command were Islamized (or turkified if you prefer)or were simply Jannisaries(which is the same).There was an anti ottoman sentiment and nationalism arguments and reactions in balkan and less in anatolia against ottomans from every national fraction who believed the were the true romioi/descendants of romans.

Rome fell in 476 bc.the roman state evolved to an christian greek speaking,east based state with nova roma,constantinople as its capital.In early middle ages,around 7-8th century the classical imperium of roman state changed.first with the language(early 7th century,latin to greek under Flavius Heraclius) and with the loss of egypt ,carthage and Syria in the late 7th early 8th century.although small parts of italy including sicily,ravenna and nominally Rome remained parts of the state we can say that roman empire transformed to βασιλεια ρωμαιων up until the final loss of jurisdiction of Rome and the usurpation of the title of roman empire by Charlemagne and the pope.the first sack of the City in 1204 broke all chances of revival.and the earlier seljuks and later ottomans finished the job.

but he is right,at least politically ever since the decline of ottoman empire the state is a shithole,nationalistic secular but genocidal Ataturk to juntas and erdogan now how is worse than a junta.turkey is a hellhole for human rights and workers rights.the lower classes are in shambles and Kurds are being opressed as fuck

What stabilizing factor?
Ottoman rule, especially in 19th century, was atrocious.
You think being ruled by a system where Christian majority is legally and economically inferior to Muslim minority was sustainable, and would somehow bring stability to Balkans?
And no, they would never reform it properly. Why would Muslims give up their privilege?
Even if foreign powers forced them, they would nominally accept and then Muslim population would violently react to it. There, more instability.

delete this

>*sigh*
Ya we should make it more like reddit where this kind of outrageous faggotry is welcomed

>flags

Why? You can't see that OP is a stinking Turk without a flag next to his post?

The biggest mistake the turks made was abolishing the Caliphate.

>Its a fact that the Balkans was an objectively better place when the Ottomans ruled over it.
Only because of the Eternal Serb and their ridiculous Pan-Slavist "WHERE THERE IS A SERB THERE TOO IS SERBIA" bullshit leading them to being duplicitous, vascilating faggots when they weren't engaging in wars of genocidal conquest. Seriously, imagine a Balkans without Serbia. Just imagine...

Ottoman empire wasn't better. Just because Serbs are retards it doesn't invalidate the fact that Ottomans were also retards.

>The Ottoman Empire did anything wrong
Bullshit

>Kidnap Christian children to endocrinate them and use them as cannon fodder to it's fight against christians.
>Kidnap christian women to rape them in harem and sell them as slaves.
>Led war against enveryone
>No scientific accomplishement

Ottoman empire was just another muslim shithole

I hope God slaughter for turks for their crimes.

>cannon fodder

uhmm they were elite soldiers

Same goes for the French Foreign Legion, but they're still cannon fodder.

im sorry but you dont know what you are talking about

>muh god
kek fucking hypocrite
If mehmed converted to orthodoxy and did the same to nomads coming from east you would cheer how he enslaved evil mudslime tribal turks

same goes for the t*rks, they would talk about the cruelties if they had endured the same treatment.

balkans-middle east is the mecca of solipsism

>implying

Sometimes spelt Janizary. The Janissaries were Turkish elite corps in the standing army of the Ottoman Empire during the late 14th century. They were first called Yeniceri, new soldier or troop in Turkish. It was Sultan Murad I who created the group, capturing Christian youths from the Balkans, and forcing them into the Muslim belief at gunpoint. These Christian converts were regarded as cannon fodder, and so they were trained to fight on the front lines of Turkish armies, to perhaps preserve the more important Muslims.

This group of cannon fodder, however, became the most feared and respected military force in the Middle East. After years of serving on the front lines, the Jannisaries emerged as elite forces and incredibly pious Muslims. At this stage they were organised into three divisions, the Cemaat, Bölükhalki and Segban. The Janissaries were subject to strict religious doctrine, such as celibacy, however this doctrine was abandoned in the late 16th century. The Janissaries ceased to recruit and began to become their own force, no longer controlled by the government. They began leading many Jihads to reclaim territory deemed as Holy Lands, and lead political coups to overthrow any Sultan giving them grief.

The Janissaries were tolerated until the early 19th century when the Ottoman Empire began introducing European reforms into its army. The Janissaries were highly fanatic, and incredibly religious, believing that Europeans were anti-Allah and their ways were not to be tolerated. They led a Jihad in open rebellion againsy Sultan Mahmud II, ruling at this time. Mahmud II reacted quickly, declaring war on the Rebels and stormed the Janissaries' headquarters in June 1826, surrounding the place and bombarding it with cannon fire. Most of the Janissaries were killed in the siege, however some escaped and were captured, later executed by the Sultan's forces.

everything2.com/title/Janissary

so it started as cannon fodder but they were allowed to turn into elite soldiers, sounds good to me, i mean yeah sure, the kidnapping and shit is bad

Dude, literally every country who interacted with the ottomans hated their asses, and in their national sayings, turks are either connected to barbarity, stubbornness, or smoking their ass off.

Tunis takes the cake, though
Tarrakni" ("He turkified me") in reference to the corruption of the Ottoman rule of Tunisia. It means "he ruined me".

"They [the Ottomans] were, upon the whole, from the black day when they first entered Europe, the one great anti-human specimen of humanity. Wherever they went, a broad line of blood marked the track behind them, and, as far as their dominion reached, civilization disappeared from view. They represented everywhere government by force, as opposed to government by law.”
—William Gladstone, 1876

Kosovo is Serbian.

Is that köskal baba?

They were never converted on gun point or used as cannon fodder.

They were created as a non-political army that would be only loyal to Sultan as to balance the power of the Turkish landed cavalry. They were educated and trained exceptionally well, which is also where they got converted.

It was selective conscription .

>Are you so ignorant that you dont know that Greeks were literally the MAIN administrators and bureaucrats of the Ottoman Empire?
That's because the Turks were absolute retards, but they had a pretty penny to hire good and educated administrators, like Greeks
Remember Seytanoglu? The first Ottoman millionaire, he jewed the fuck out of you assholes so hard that you cut his head off
>Ever heard of a guy named Hayreddin Barbarosa
Only a Greek genetically, he was a Muslim Turk in all other aspects
>Greeks, Armenians, all those other fake cultures all made great Turks
And they made even greater Anti-Turks
>fake cultures
You mean people with a common language, religion, art, tradition, culture and ideas are now fake cultures?
You should look up the Modern Greek Enlightenment
>The Turkish identity is similar to the Roman identity in that anyone of a different ethnic group could become one of them by behaving like one and identifying as one
That is if you were Muslim and spoke Turkish
No fucking way do Pomaks refer to themselves as Turks nor Orthodox Christians refer to themselves as Turks (even Gaugauz who are Turkic deny similarites with Turks)
>by behaving like one
To be a Roman you literally had to have Roman citizenship
You didn't have to speak Latin, nor believe the Roman religion, nor come from Rome
As long as you were a Roman citizen, you were a Roman, something that does not correlate to being a Turk