Why didn't the castle as we know it in the west develop in south eastern Europe

Why didn't the castle as we know it in the west develop in south eastern Europe.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles_in_Croatia
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles_in_Croatia

He means places like Romania/Bulgaria and Serbia.

Croatia is just an extension of Venice.

It did though the balkans and turkey have shitload of castles the ottoman sultan fatih sultan mehmed even built two before the conquest of istanbul to block the straits.

Only coastal Croatia is.

Doesn't Romania, Transylvania specifically, have a lot?
The primary legend from the region, about Dracula, (AKA Vlad the Impaler) revolves around a castle after all.

But that is half the country.

lower population density

more mountainous so land didn't need to be dotted with fortifications to threaten enemy supply lines

many castles in Europe didn't end up being used for centuries or at all, they were more status symbols or "fleets in being", perhaps built to military standards but still just for show, south eastern europe didn't have this cultural attitude

>more mountainous should mean less castles
Absolute brainlet

Jesus Christ where do I begin:
>lower population density
Fucking Constantinope was there man! Do you realize that in the period IV - XIIth centuries this region was probably the most populated in Europe.

>more mountainous so land didn't need to be dotted with fortifications to threaten enemy supply lines
But it was. I'll give you an example - modern day Bulgaria which is smack in the middle of the Balkans has an area of 110 000 square kilometers, Englands has and area of 130 000 square miles. In Bulgaria there are 3369 mapped castles/fortresses/fortifications with around 10 having substantial surviving parts (that's another story). England has around 1500 castles with 300 preserved or have substantial surviving parts. Let me back that up with a historic text:
"Mevlânâ Mehmed Neşri in his Cosmorama the universal history of the world describes the Balkans before the conquest as "They say the land of Aleksandroglu Sosman (Ivan Shishman) spread from the Tuna (Danube) to Edirne opposite of Eflyak (Wallachian Kingdom). It was a joyful land with sheep, milk and honey flowed in rivers from it to the world, and the resourses there were more bountiful than anywhere else, and it had more fortresses and fortified cities than anywhere else"
Now imagine that Serbia, Romania and Greece have just as many fortresses and you'd get the picture.

>many castles in Europe didn't end up being used for centuries or at all, they were more status symbols or "fleets in being", perhaps built to military standards but still just for show, south eastern europe didn't have this cultural attitude

And you said it yourself. The main difference is that the castles in the west were mainly build as manors which can be used for millitary purposes if need arises. On the Balkans the castles were fortresses and they were all dedicated military installations which quite frankly saw use until the most recent major war in these parts -WWII

>Fucking Constantinope was there man

At least in Western Europe, state centralization was actually associated with a pause in castle construction.

What would happen is, every time a state collapsed, every two bit thug would throw up a castle on a nearby hill and start harassing merchant traffic, and the next state would have to recognize them as a noble because it was cheaper than storming the castle and killing everyone inside.

Castles would pop up like mushrooms after a rain, every time an empire like the Merovingians or the Carolingians started to decline.

The St Hilarion castle in the occupied part of Cyprus was built by the Byzantines somewhere in the 10th-11th century

What do you mean? Serbia is full of western looking castles

...

The west learned a lot about castle architecture by their interaction with the Byzantines and Muslims during the crusades. T.E Lawrence wrote a book about that

I feel like that's not quite right. While the Franks learned about fortifications and siege weapons from the Byzantines, the lessons from the Muslims were more a case of necessity. As in, the Frankish castles were superior to the Arab ones, but had to be even more grand and well-constructed to survive as military outposts in the Outremer.

Castles require population centers to guard. Balkans, meanwhile, had a relative lack of cities aside from Constantinople, that accounter for almost 20% of the regions population.

But mountaneous terriotory would be prime for castles, as mountain passes reduce the movement possibilities of armies to very few ones.

Typically urban centers were protected by citadels and city walls rather than by castles.

Castles were associated with rural nobility, who were largely distinct from urban Europe.

>brainlet
I'm not wrong, you don't understand my argument. The Ottomans are marching into your territory with one of their huge armies, you intend to attack their supply lines so they cannot support a large army and most of them become malnourished and die of dysentry, then you strike.

How long did Smederevo here last? 30 years

Golubac? Serbia lost it countless times.

A small meme polity like Serbia is at a disadvantage when it comes to pitched battles and holding fortifications. Further these castles were built on the coast or a river, not deep in the mountains.

What you do is use the mountains instead of the castles. To get to you they must split up and go through mountain passes where you ambush them. It is not like, say, the 100 years war, where both sides have large armies and there is a lot of flat land with good supply lines, here castles are crucial because it is the only way to block supply lines and wear down an attacker.

I am sure Serbia was a joyful land flowing with milk and honey but still their "castles" were obviously just tiny forts to help block mountain passes. It is rugged backwards country, think Scotland but continental.

>half the country is irrelevant.

Yes you are a brainlet. Mountainous areas always had far more castles than fucking plains.

Doesn't Greece have a bunch of castle esque constructions up on it's mountains? Like Mistras?

Entire Balkan has hundreds of castles.
OP is a giant faggot who thinks west is superior to everyone.
There are churches and castles in Serbia that are far older than his entire country.

>I am sure Serbia was a joyful land flowing with milk and honey but still their "castles" were obviously just tiny forts to help block mountain passes. It is rugged backwards country, think Scotland but continental.
Show me on the map which one you're from

central europe

W-what? KEK

Central Europe is just a tool that Czechs and Hungarians use to distance themselves from the clusterfuck that is the FSU.

Then why did the combined forces of Hungary, France, England and Venice shat themselves in front of the walls of the inferior Nicopolis fortress then?