Why is this conquest seen as illegitimate by so many?

Why is this conquest seen as illegitimate by so many?

>conquest
It was a liberation.

The people practically opened the gate for Mehmed II and threw the corrupt Constantine XI at his feet with the rest of the corrupt Christian unpious sect leaders.

By who?

The illegitimate part is claiming they were emperors of Rome.

deus vulters

Oh boy

this desu

Who's gonna object? Roman empire went to Shit and as a shadow of its former past. No civ near Constantinople had the power to intervene, practically all of Europe was in a dark age. And meanwhile, the muzzies had one of the most powerful armies and advanced technologies (Orban Cannon) of the time.

b-b-bait!

Many white people don't like the double standards that liberals have when it comes to the islamic conquests in Europe and elsewhere compared to the European conquests of the Americas and elsewhere.

If it was wrong when we did it then it was wrong when the Turks did it too.

butthurt

Butthurt

Because muslims are subhumans who belong to the desert of Arabia.

>Conquest
>Illegitimate

???

Might makes right.

Because muslims can't make legitimate conquests of European, Christian land.

But that's exactly what happened. Geez, this /pol/-posting is getting old, but you people are still getting me flustered.

It's what happened, but it's not legitimate.
>le anybody that has common sense or isn't full-on Reddit or Tumblr is /pol/ maymay
kill yourself

>people conquering other lands and being proud of it is hypocritical because they themselves don't like being conquered
How does it feel being so autistic that you cannot comprehend basic human behavior or thought?

Top fucking kek, not gonna take the bait again. :^)

butthurt.

You sound triggered.

Cheap b8

Conquest is always illegitimate

but seriously though

someone opened the kerkaporta from inside during the siege

gee I wonder who it is

Well,Rome or Rum in Anatolian Turkish in 15th century meant the land once controlled by Eastern Romans.Considering in 15th and 16th century Ottomans controlled places where it was once Eastern Rome makes it legitimate for the use of Rum or Rome in Turkish.

Not the poster but still seems like butthurt because of deus vulters.

Because a number of European power had been fighting the Ottomans for around 70 years before hand and ended up fighting them near non stop for the next 140 years. Add to this that most of Ottoman's holding in Europe revolted on them, that before WWI France and the UK had to save the Ottoman two times, that the Turks almost lost all of their European holdings till Bulgaria turned on its allies, and that they were on the Losing side of WWI.

Basically a history of bad blood and the feeling that if they could not hold it on their own it was not really theirs.

It's not. It's just seen as overly aggressive in the modern world

But user

Christian europeans ARE the legitimate rulers of the world.

Under this viewpoint both makes sense; it's illegitimate that muslims created their empires, and we wish to use our might to fix that.

Because they ruined it, look at Turkey now its hovering just above the third world, they had a chance to actually be a pillar of civilization but they squandered it and became even worse than the degenerate Byzantines

1453 was an inside job

>Dark Age
>15th Century

People contest their succession to the roman title (which they didn't even actually claim anyway). Not the conquest itself.

>illegitimate

Not illegitimate but tragic. It should never have happened, and it was a most unfortunate series of events that it did.

Conquest like any other.It might've been tragic, but also unavoidable.

>Christian europeans ARE the legitimate rulers of the world.

So why are your cities being filled with Allah's chosen people you cucklord?

Because they're illiterate cheap labor.

Isn't that what happened everytime Constantinople fell?

Who live on welfare :^)

But Slavs are already there, and they are Christian. So why import musslemen

By mistake, not by wanting to help the Turks.

any evidence?
I know Persia and India got ISLAM'D because it was a way for the poor to rebel against the caste systems.

Butthurt Christians

Show me ONE liberal who says Islamic imperialism is justified but European isn't

>they themselves
We're looking at this from a historical perspective, retard. Nobody themselves is conquering or being conquered here. And understanding 'basic human behavior or thought' doesn't justify hypocrisy, it just means you understand why people are hypocrites.