HEΛΛΑΣ

>O M X A E K A T H B P Y
It's right in your picture dumbo. They got those from the Greeks, not the Latins.

the ottoman government did a good job of gently encouraging the byzantine greeks to convert, leave, or get crushed by arbitrary taxes and maybe killed

it was easier for the byzantine greeks that couldn't afford to find refuge to abandon their legacy. Not that the byzantine greeks could have preserved their influence, the power vacuum in the west lead to kingdoms that tried to preserve their idea of a Roman Empire, whereas the turks didn't allow any sort of byzantine influence to leave the balkan region through various means

the byzantines may have survived longer than the western empire, but in a sense their death was more permanent and final than the death of the western roman empire.

It lasted longer than the British Empire. Food for thought.

the byzantine controlled region was a shithole already when the turks came

so much this
this board was the last bastion of rational thought until eu4 faggots came

>written by Ozkan Turkoglu

...

That's because Greeks are literal subhumans that never achieved anything relevant. They're even worse than balkan rapebabies or k*rds in general. Actually, they also look K*rdish.
We should have genocided them all. They shamelessly steal our cuisine and culture and brand it as Gr**k.

amazon.co.uk/Balkans-UNIVERSAL-HISTORY-Mark-Mazower/dp/1842125443

t. t*rk larper

t. Gr**k subhuman
i'd unironically kill a Gr**k subhuman if i could get away with it.
I loathe your subhuman kind.

you're not even a turk you piece of shit, shut your gob

Yes I am you fucking imbecile. I'm posting from Turkey.

Genociding Armenians was a mistake, Armenians are pinnacle of civilization compared to your inbred kind.

I wonder when will our glorious Padishah declare a jihad on your inferior country so we can remaster 1071

...

It's complete horseshit from top to bottom.

>Ottoman peasants were more free than Hungarian peasants
I imagine how uneducated can one be to write shit like this

>Balkan people didn't have their own aristocracy
They did, and it was fully incorporated into the Ottoman system. In fact what sparked the Serbian uprising against the Turks was the Turks assassinating Serbia noblemen.

>"peasant democracy"
It was neither a democracy nor ruled by peasants. What the fuck is this guy talking about?

>i'm from turkey
>genociding armenians was a mistake
>armenians are the pinnacle of civilization
100% convinced you're not a turk

What's Iellas;

>I imagine how uneducated can one be to write shit like this
[citation needed]
>They did, and it was fully incorporated into the Ottoman system.
that was in the latter empire when power had become devolved to local elites who reaaserted themselves.

>[citation needed]
The only aspect in which the Hungarian lords were harsher to the commoners than the Ottoman lords was religious matters, and this was irrelevant considering most of Hungary was Catholic/Protestant.

>that was in the latter empire when power had become devolved to local elites who reaaserted themselves
So what the fuck is that retard babbling about with peasant democracies?

no offense but id rather trust a history professor from the university of columbia rather than some randoms at Veeky Forums desu

>an Anglo being an expert on the Ottoman empire
Give a trusted German source before I even consider that faggot.

i can name 10 more empire that lasted longer than the british """"empire""""""

Well that's why we read history, to eschew the traditional view of things.

>The only aspect in which the Hungarian lords were harsher to the commoners than the Ottoman lords was religious matters, and this was irrelevant considering most of Hungary was Catholic/Protestant.
citation still needed. i mean no offense, but as far as i know hungary had an exploitative magnate class that even the hungarian lower gentry despised (hence why they took the lead in the 1848 revolution, for example)

>So what the fuck is that retard babbling about with peasant democracies?
they're not mutually exclusive. despite the rise of local elites the balkans still had a big population of free peasantry (i.e. no legal obligations to their landlords). when it came to independence the local elites needed the peasantry to back them up against the ottoman forces, and to do this they appealed to national identity. after independence, constitutional monarchies were set up and many peasants could vote. of course these were pretty corrupt democracies, but the political elites of these new states (the former local magnates) were not so powerful as to totally suppress the peasants. politicians needed the peasant vote to get elected so many became peasant populists that defended their interests (such as low taxation, easier loans, laxer regulations, infrastructure to east the export agricultural commodities) or bought them off through patronage networks of some kind or another. peasants were not as strong an electoral force in other countries because these balkan countries relied primarily on agricultural export (as opposed to say france which had a large peasantry but also petit bourgeois, industrial magnates, industrial workers, and other large urban interests, not to mention competing agricultural interests such as the wine lobby and colonial lobby of algeria)

also that user didn't have the next page after that, which makes it a bit more clear. i've also read the book so i'm speaking from what i read. the later part of the book describes the peasant parties in the post-independence decades

and as the excerpt well puts it, the difference between the flat eastern european plains and the balkans was that if ever conditions became too oppressive the peasants had resource to escaping into the rugged mountain terrain, and the local notables quite well knew this and so kept burdens lower

Byzantine Greek influence

Modern day Civil Law - Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis was picked up by the West and is still the foundation for law codes for over half the nations of the world

Mosaic Art and unique architecture - the distinctly Greek iconography that also has a strong hold in Eastern Europe is a product of Byzantine art and culture, architectural techniques such as the pendentive dome and vaulted ceiling characterize the buildings of the area just as stained glass and flying buttresses influence Western architecture

The Double-Headed Eagle - now synonymous with Eastern European Empires was an emblem taken by the Palaiologos dynasty to represent the empire and the family, and has been adopted as national symbols by nations such as Russia, Serbia, and many more.

Orthodox Christianity - probably the strongest influence the Byzantines had, using their faith to influence the Balkans, Anatolia, and Russia, where it still holds today.

There are many others, it just looks like Byzantine influence is scarce because of the pervasiveness of classical Latin culture in Western Europe, once you step into Eastern Europe, Byzantine influence is just as pervasive, especially in Russia, where their religion, art/icons, architecture, and the Cyrillic script were owed to them by the Byzantines.

As for global reaching influence, our law codes have the heaviest byzantine influence worldwide, with the reforms of the 530's just improving on classical Roman law in every way.

bump

ttbh

cyrillic, georgian, armenian alphabets were developed from byzantine greek

also in a way church slavonic is a byzantine/bulgarian influence on orthodox europe

>Not posting Greece's true natural borders

Latin alphabet itself is of Greek origin.

>Meanwhile the Byzantine Greeks left almost no regional influence maybe other than influencing the Albanian flag.
It seems you don't understand how many words with Greek roots you use in everyday life.
learnthat.org/pages/view/roots.html

That comes from antiquity, not byzantine greeks

>Greece's
You should have said "Macedonian".

>Macedonia wasn't hellenic
>Macedonia didn't speak in Greek dialects

What we call Byzantine is just an eastern part of Roman empire where Greek influence was dominant always.
Even New Testament was written in Greek.
A lot of Latin and Greek legacy survived Dark Ages thanks to Byzantine.

>That comes from antiquity, not byzantine greeks
Wise men used Greek words.
Don't you think it means that Greek language was still in use and popular thanks to Byzantine influence?

technically no

they were considered close, but not the same

sort of like how isrealites in the bible are different from edomites even though they're pretty much the same shit

according to greek mythology, greeks are descended from hellen and macedonians from macedon

not entirely true.

Byzantine's military force was certainly not the best one, but they excelled in other areas, especially in arts and trade, while the rest of Europe was slowly picking its pieces together after the fall of the western Roman empire.

The main flaws of the Byzantine Empire was corruption and constant power straggles. Power straggle was, after all, the main reason for the disaster that was the 4th Crusade, from which the empire never really recovered.

The Western Romans were conquered by Romanized barbarians who mostly shared their religion, their legacy was safe because they were replaced by little thuglet empires that behaved pretty much the same way. The Eastern Romans were conquered by a people who shared neither culture or religion, it makes sense that the Turks would try to stamp out a legacy that conflicted with their own.

Russian Greek
A - Α
Б
B - Β (changed from [b] to [v] in Greek, [v] in Russian)
Г - Γ
Д - Δ
E - Ε
Ё
Ж
З - Ζ ( з - ζ )
И - Η (In Russian middle bar rotated counterclockwise with tine, changed from [ɛː] to [i] in Greek, [i] in Russian)
Й
К - Κ
Л - Λ
M - Μ
H - Ν (In Russian middle bar rotated counterclockwise with time)
O - O
П - Π
P - Ρ
C - Σ ( c - ς)
T - Τ
У - Υ (changed from [u] to [i] in Greek, [u] in Russian)
Ф - Φ
Х - Χ
Ц
Ч
Ш
Щ
Ъ
Ы
Ь
Э
Ю
Я

All Russian letter which don't have Greek prototypes also don't have prototypes in Latin.

You just described Turkey. About a century of ascendancy followed by constant grinding decline. But at least the ERE wasn't populated by cockroaches.

Speak some Turkish then, faggot.

This looks like something taken straight from Assassin's Creed: Revelations.

not an argument

show this pile of steaming horseshit and lies to any balkan christian and tell us if you survived

>posts a sensational newspaper account
>fails to ignore christian atrocities against muslims
you don't know shit. a balkan christian today is not a balkan christian 600 years ago, faggot.

yes, today a balkan christian will only beat you up, 600 years ago he would boil you alive

nice one, internet tough guy. but its quite clear you haven't read a single history book about your own region.

As a Guatemalan-Russian westerner I have to disagree. Turks at least had an interesitng empire.

shit i wish i was as though as balkan christians who totally not got conquered and subjugated by turks for 500 years

yes, if we ignore the countless rebellions, folk songs about heroes killing turks, memories of turkish atrocities didn't, then yes, your version of history might be true

1912 the turks got theirs, we had the last laugh while slaughtering and raping the subhumans

joke's on you damn retards, after 500 years you became turks yourselves
one of you even allied with them

nope, we kicked those animals back into asia where they belong

>back to asia
>Istanbul historically known as Constantinople and Byzantium, is the most populous city in Turkey and the country's economic, cultural, and historic center

>posts balkan league poster
>forgets they allied the turks afterwards