How the fuck did they do it?

How the fuck did they do it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Gülhane
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gord_(archaeology)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Millet, Devsirme

A better question is why? Those are some ugly ass borders

Same way the Habsburgs did. Lots of royal marriages and killing off political rivals and threats to your dynasty, and de-centralized government that let regions self-govern provided they paid feudal tribute to the Emperor of the Romans (in Austria's case) or Rum (in Ottoman's case).

For a while they had institutionalized fratricide (killing off all other potential heirs) and didn't let the sultan have children with his wives (only concubines that were cut off from the sultan when they became pregnant so that the concubines would become entirely dependent on the success of their son to maintain their position and gain power)

Also the janissary system and

>you now realise that this abomination wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for the clusterfuck that is the 4th crusade

The Byzantines were still fucked desu

They've been through worse. The Venetians and crusaders just happened to arrive at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The borders were natural desu.

>lost Bulgaria and Serbia
>lost Cilicia to the Armenians
>no attempt to retake anatolia from the seljuks after Myriokephalon

If you want to save Byzantium, erase the Angeloi dynasty.

Oh, I forgot they lost the Croatian coast to Hungary too. What a worthless fucking dynasty.

Enslaving Christian boys and forming them into a cadre of soldiers loyal only to the Caliph.

>Venetians and crusaders
>Weakened Serbs and other slavs
>Hungary is in crisis at the time
>3 Bulgarian kingdoms at the time - fighting with each other (using ottomans mercenaries)
>Byzantium is in ruins (making his first steps from the ashes).
>Wallachia struggling for independence from Bulgaria and Hungary

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
The real question is -why they did it so slow ?

You forget that the ottomans weren't the only turkish beylik or state. They were 16 of them after the Seljucks collapsed and they all were in wars with eachother everyone pretending to be the new heir of the seljucks. In fact when ottomans conquered half of the balkans they were fighting with the karamans as well. When the sultan went to Varna to stop the crusade the karamans hit him in the back and burned down Ankara and many central anatolian cities. Well, the ottomans fucked the crusaders, after that he went back to anatolia and fucked the shit out of the karamanis as well. That's pretty badass if you ask me.

TL;DR Ottomans were not the only turkish state, they were just the strongest.

Yes erdogan , yes. ottomans were the most glories ,unique and powerful badasses,praise allah my brother.

>lose almost all of Italy and Greece along with Cyprus
Oh jeez, how will they ever recover?

Thing is, your map proves the point.

After the twin blows of the Arab Conquests (which reached as far into Anatolia as Cilicia) and the Bulgar conquests, you can see right there that the only land left in the world that was culturally/ethnically/continually "Roman" consisted of Anatolia, and bits of Thrace and modern day Greece.

Guess where the armies of the Macedonian restoration came from? Where the main gain of the Empire was located? Anatolia. Anatolia was the last main bastion of through and through Roman population of a good chunk and size.

When we think of Roman "recovery" of the Macedonian dynasty, it was all made with the use of a strong populace derived mainly from an increasingly well populated, highly 'Roman' Anatolia.

Take a look at the map you just posted. Now erase the red of the whole center of Anatolia, and thats how much "Roman Empire" populated by "Romans" you have left in the whole world. Increasingly, people are spouting off the meme of "Manzikert" wasn't actually that bad without properly understanding why historians ever said anything to that effect. And before "muh muh Komnenian restoration." No, the line we can trace back to saying that Manzikert wasn't that bad refers to historians who say that the "battle" in and of itself wasn't responsible for the devastation in effect. Read that clearly. They aren't saying that what happened from 1068-1080 wasn't terrible for the empire, they're just making an argument of attribution, saying that it wasn't the battle in and of itself, but rather, the positively daft way the Romans handled it afterward ("lets 'invite' the Turks to come in and stir up trouble why don't we?").

[continued]

When we talk of the Komnenian restoration, sure, the Byzantines/romans managed to regain a strong role in the world, but it was always a frought one, fragile. It doesn't seem it ONLY if you're idea of assessing the state of the empire is how much red is on a map. "But, bu-but, they had Bulgaria and a good part of the Balkans! a-And, Armenia!" Yeah bubs, under military hegemony, they had the nominal fealty of the Serbians, who from 1050 or so up until 1204/1453 never saw themselves as Romans. As for Bulgaria? Despite their utter subjugation at the hands of Basil II, from 1015, till their rebellion in about 1190, they never saw themselves as Romans, or Roman people. At least, they never lost their sense of being Bulgars. Theirs was a Kingdom/Tsardom hundreds of years in the making, during which those parts of the Balkans forever lost their sense of 'Romanness.' Finally, the same was true of the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia. Once the Turks swept into Anatolia, they dispersed them from their original homelands in the Armenian highland toward an area that by luck, would soon have Crusaders ready to deflect or distract.

Take a look at a map in my previous post. What you see in pink is more or less the last real Roman areas in the world ca 1200 ad. The last places where the people see themselves as Romans. This is a huuuge amount less Romans then there where even 150 years prior. The majority of the empire's population post 639 aaalways came from Anatolia (Greece has, likewise, aaalways been a relatively sparsely populated place in comparison. Still is.) To add to this, two of the other largest cities of the Empire ca 1185-1200, Dyrrachium(Durazzo) and Thessalonica had already been sacked and heavily depopulated by other Frankish crusaders. Save perhaps Smyrna, the last hub of Rome was in the city of Constantinople itself.

Post Manzikert (that is, post 1068-1080), the Empire was in permanent decline. 1204 was the deathknell.

this meme is so stupid

Byzantines were already extremely weak. If the 4th crusade didnt happen maybe constantinople wouldnt be taken in 1453 but maybe in 1500

IMO Ottomans were good conquerors so its no surprise they conquered all the land.

But the real question is how did they keep it for centuries. I mean their entire empire consisted of territories with completely foreign religions and cultures, so how the fuck did they last 600 years???

The only palpable alternate timeline I can see is the Byzzies don't shit the bed after Basil II, and hold onto Anatolia for a couple hundred more years. If they do that up until the gunpowder age, they last up to the present

>ywn live in a timeline where the Roman Empire was fully restored by the byzzies

They make perfect sense taking into account geography.

Multiculturalism works without political correctness. Imagine, for instance, if Merkel shot any Syrian who refused to be conscripted into labor for her Reich. Things would clear up real fast for Europe and the future European Civil War would not be happening.

The Gulf states, of all places, are full of migrant workers who actually work and pay taxes. Again, they abandon political correctness and simply work to death any minority who gets out of line. One of the reasons why Globalism will fail is that it forces the natives to the outsiders, rather than making the outsiders come to the natives.

One more thing. When the Ottomans became 'politically correct' and started jumping on the Feminism/Diversity bandwagon, shit fell apart fast. Multicultural empires have existed by maintaining their standards and by taking a hard line against outgroups. We live in a era where our multiculturalism is going to fail because the rich and powerful are mismanaging the situation, which will push us into Yugoslavia territory rather than Ottoman Turk territory.

This is true but to a certain extent. Although the Ottomans didnt ask every single fucking non-turk's opinion like a democracy, they had a system which would allow a certain level of autonomy. The millet system.

Another reason is also the Devsirme System. This allowed Non-Turks to integrate and join the Empires rank whether be in the Military or Politics and Scientists.

So they weren't as cucked as the west today but weren't as xenophobic as say Nazi Germany

the point is to have multicultural society where the values of each different culture are similar and harmonise with each other, the problem is not multiculturalism itself but clash of culture that happen when the culture differentiate so much

>When the Ottomans became 'politically correct' and started jumping on the Feminism/Diversity bandwagon
they never did, if anything they become ethno-nationalist during their decline, like young turks emphasising turkish identity over ottoman ientity

The most small-minded, 'I-visit-three-websites-a-day-for-hours-on-end-and-thats-it' horseshit I've had the displeasure to read in while

he's right on the last part though

Good army.

He probably meant Tanzimat Reforms. Like making homosexuality legal n shit. I mean hell, it's recorded that most Turks at the time were closeted kek.

Fair enough. They were multicultural, but not 'Cucked.' Demanding young Christian boys as soldier-slaves in your empire is ISIS-Tier, but the system proved to be highly effective.

There isn't a Westerner alive who should lecture how 'Multiculturalism' ought to be done, considering how badly things are going to fall apart in our lifetime. We may see the entire First World break up into Anarchy in less than ten years because of failed multiculturalist policies.

But to answer our question, both the Hapsburgs and Ottoman (and Roman) multiculturalism was built on the ideal of service to an Emperor. As long as we all serve the same thing, our races become irrelevant. The US worked like this too, but it was a Constitution, not an Emperor. We forgot this how America used to work, because Globalists don't know what they are doing, despite being tremendously powerful.

Also. Turkish Identity emerged as a response to other identities threatening the Turkish people, in the same way that White Identity is emerging now that other ethnic groups are threatening the populations.

The real world is a small-minded place. I hate how human nature is, and I really did believe in Social Justice, but historically, what motivates people to Left-Liberalism is a decline of standards from decadence, rather than a natural product of success. Societies don't 'start' being liberal but always wind up becoming liberal AFTER the hard work is done. That's why history is full of things like patriarchy, oppression, violence, etc. And in the Ottoman's case, what started as a brutal, but lawful realm devolved overtime into being run by harems and outsiders. Especially after the tariffs went up, when the Sultans protected their small businesses from having to industrialize at all.

False.

İttihat ve Terakki pushed for many social reforms within the late stages of the Empire. By mentally pressuring Sultan Abdulmecid to sign the Tanzimat Reforms, many rights were given to racial and religious minorities which combined with the rise of nationalism fueled the Balkan wars and the Armenian uprisings and other disastrous problems for the Empire.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Gülhane

Some of the other reforms by Abdulmecid:

-Plans to abolish slave markets (1847)
-Plans to build a Protestant chapel (1847)
-Abolition of a capitation tax which imposed higher tariffs on non-Muslims (1856)
-Non-Muslims were allowed to become soldiers in the Ottoman army (1856)
-Decriminalisation of homosexuality (1858)

Things like the Tanzimat reforms are a symptom of the decline, in the same way that weightloss is a symptom of cancer. There is a decline of standards that gradually accumulate overtime until the Empire becomes sickened from its decadence.

Then again, neither Multiculturalism nor Homosexuality cause Empires to decline. Alexander the Great was literally a Multicultural Homosexual and he founded a series of empires that lasted for centuries. History has shown that Multiculturalism can work well, but 'Liberalism' (loosening of standards) doesn't, which is something beyond the nuisances that you would find at pol.

You probably know more than me about this topic so I'll just defer to you.

literally just desert and mountains

I'm , I just want to say thanks for the well thought out response, especially in light of my own small-minded one.

I still disagree, but I appreciate ya

It's all good. We all say heated shit all the time.

>Alexander the Great was a Homosexual
Hang yourself.

What did they? African and Red Sea were actually independent, Balkan regions were autonomous.

A better question to ask is, did they even squat?

this is epic
poland's natural borders are the rhine to the urals

Lol, keep this hogwash up and we'll talk about partinioning y'all up again

But in all seriousness now.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gord_(archaeology)

...

...

...

...

fuck off will ya

Give back Berlin Germ.

kill yourself Pole

For centuries the Turks had dominated a stretch of steppe terrain in anatolia and sparred with the Mongols and Timurids. At the same time they had lived in the Mediterranean world long enough to inherit technology from their Byzantine cucks and Italian merchants.

When the Timurids imploded it gave them breathing space, they expanded and set themselves up as a hybrid state, filling the same niche as the Byzantine traders alongside their little khanate. Afterwards it was simply a case of overpowering their weaker neighbors, the balkans and later the Eastern Mediterranean when gunpowder rose to prominence in the early 16th century.

The will of Allah.

The levantine and north african coast was full with cities as was anatolia and certain places in the balkan.

they also had developed a tradition of splitting conquests, they would always war in the west and then went to conquer some land in east and then to west. this kept an almost professional army on duty, battle hardened.

You're forgetting Theodoros Lascaris was Isaac's son in law and making a line for the Throne before the Crusade.

If not for the eternal Venetians he would turn shit around before the Mongols come.