Fighting Turks in Anatolia

I know what I said. You didn't answer my question. I don't state my answer as it is biased.

Byzantine ofc, since Ottocucks are seen as foreign aliens by us westerners.
>Byzcucks massacre slavs, no one bats an eye
>ottocucks massacre slavs, oh my poor europe how bad you suffered under the yoke of the evil foreigner

>>Byzcucks massacre slavs, no one bats an eye
Care to give an example for this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_the_Bulgar_Slayer

My point is Byzantine aggression and atrocities (and they looted and raided and pillage when they were able to, Michael Vth iirc even raided the caliphate and paraded the slaves around cosntantinople) are slided because they are `one of us`. In a similar way a lot of european to european attrocities are slided because it is inside the family.

Ottomans are alien, not in a Russian, byzantine level `a bit different but still one of us` type of alien but I mean totally alien, this is the main reason of the animosity iirc. People cite how ottocucks contributed nothing to civilization, but russia was pretty backwards up until 19th century, I never seen anyone bitching about them. Nor I see anyone who praises Russia due to his contribution. I would say If ottomans invented internet they would still be hated because they are an alien and foreign entitiy, they are not in the family, they are not one of us. Therefore their attrocities are far more vile and wicked.

Turks were the last `foreign` entity that threatened europe that reputation sticks.

forgot to add
I was going to state this and other campaigns of byzantine emperors (and empresses, iirc Irene also attacked slavs) but you posted before me, his nickname is well earned.
The beef with Krum is also noteworthy, although some consider him to be more turanid than slavic so there's that.

He was awesome as fuck, he slaughtered the Bulgarian army just as the Bulgarians slaughtered his army at the battle of Gates of Trajan. When he subjugated the Bulgarian Empire he showed benevolence - allowed the Bulgarian nobility to retain their positions and kept the taxes and their collection the same, he even lowered some of the taxes. It was after his death that the taxes were increased and the Bulgarians started rebelling. Basil was pretty bad ass and that's coming from a Bulgarian, don't dare compare him to the ottosavages

Expected. As you know, the blinded people were his soldiers. After conquering the whole of Bulgaria in 1018, Basil turned out to be a pretty cool guy for the locals actually. Just this semester I had to sit an exam of Medieval Bulgarian history, and to be honest, it appears the Byzantine empire has done things to easily incorporate the Bulgarian lands into the empire without turning them into 'greeks' or 'byzantines' or whatever. A lot of apocryphal literature was written during the nearly 200 years of foreign reign over Bulgaria and the empire did nothing to prevent the people from writing stuff solely for the purpose of remembering who they were.
Now the Ottoman conquest was hyperbolized and overblown, but it was mostly political.

The Byzantines treated the locals in a cool way.

Nikephorus was an inbred fuck who payed with his life for his innocence. The case with the bulgars was always the same, you either completely fuck their shit up and conquer them or don't even try. Raiding their capital for bragging rights wasn't so smart in retrospect was it Nikcy

Byzantium was pretty shit all things considered, aside from a handful of rulers. The population was in a constant state of suffering from incompetent kings (and queens sometimes) that cared more about the court than the people.

Which Nikephorus are you refering to? Nikephorus Phocas or someone else?

>they didn't even aid the crusade against them.
Gee, I wonder why.

Nikephoros the first, the one that according to Manasses and Theophanes the Confessor became a drinking cup

We as a species have a tribal mentality, so we will side with our "tribes" even if we are in the wrong. It can be hard to overcome this.

you just can't compare Turkish military skill with Balkanshit skill

>You are now aware that the best soldiers Mehmet brought with him to Constantinople were Slavic Christian vassals.

roman*

>Bulgarians
>not turks

Byzantines had nothing to do with Romans

>they just slowly shrunk for about a thousand years
meme history

Bulgarians are Slavic only by language, they're nomads same as Mongols and Turks.

did they dropped you on your head as a child ?

Are you Greek by any chance?

>The Eastern Roman Empire continued on as the Byzantine Empire until 1453 CE, and though known early on as simply `the Roman Empire’, it did not much resemble that entity at all.

ancient.eu/Roman_Empire/

Roman Empire [27 BC-476 AD]

britannica.com/place/Roman-Empire

they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans. Modern historians agree with them only in part. The term East Rome accurately described the political unit embracing the Eastern provinces of the old Roman Empire until 476, while there were yet two emperors. The same term may even be used until the last half of the 6th century, as long as men continued to act and think according to patterns not unlike those prevailing in an earlier Roman Empire. During those same centuries, nonetheless, there were changes so profound in their cumulative effect that after the 7th century state and society in the East differed markedly from their earlier forms. In an effort to recognize that distinction, historians traditionally have described the medieval empire as Byzantine.

>britannica.com/place/Byzantine-Empire

Are you talking about genetics, or culture? Because the two are veeeeeery different from one another. How much people do you think came through as a nomad horde, 300 000 and that's generous estimate. The Bulgars and the local Slavs (who in exactly the same way were actually Thracians but considered themselves Slavs) were relative unmixed by the 9th century when the whole empire was christianized and all denizens of the empire were considered christians and not slavs/wlachs/bulgars. The period that you are talking about is 800 years later since the initial Bulgar migration, how much of that nomadic culture and DNA of those 300 000 do you think remained? By the late 14th century Bulgarians, and notice that I say Bulgarians and not Bulgars were a separate nationality with Slavic traditions and language. Modern genetics however says that modern Bulgarians are actually mostly Thracian and Dacian, go fucking figure.

AAAAANYWAY I digress but what in the fuck does that have to do with the thread?

You were already debunked in . Trying to do it again in a different thread is pretty dishonest desu

He's shilling against rome, but who's paying him?

>they just slowly shrunk for about a thousand years

That's basically the ottoman empire after suleiman but with even less years.

That's still 3 or so centuries of asskicking.

With 0 progress in anything.

>finally recover your homelands from the turk
>destroy every library, bathouse, mosque, bridge, observatory built by turks to end their influence over you
>cry about "those savage turks always took and never gave" a century later

...

The Turks after about 1650 did absolutely nothing but get more and more corrupt and shitty, this is a fact.

yes, because byzantine empire was never deeply and hopelessly corrupt at any point of its glorious history

The Ottomans were shit while everyone else around them were going through the Renaissance and then the Enlightenment. The stupid fucks didn't mass adapt the printing press until 1727.

and greeks were arguing about the gender of angels while mehmet's cannons were firing on the theodosian walls
your point being?

Once a backwards horse fucker always a backwards horse fucker.

there's no arguing with you
have a good day/night wherever you are

>muh land
The Byzantines flourished culturally and economically and only really got to a point of no return with the Sack of Constantinople in 1204

On the eve of the sack Byzantium was actually more powerful and prosperous than it had been in many years.

Because they still thought they can control the turks, thats why.
Hubris and illusions of grandeur, thats why.

If the Byzantine navy and army had joined the Crusade of Varna, the Ottoman empire wouldn't have happened.
The battles were so close, neither side knew who won days after the conclusion.

Oh, and of course fucking Venice aiding the turks by transporting their troops around didn't help.
At least if Byzantium had joined the war their navy could've prevented that, or blocked the strait.