Blocks your path

He slayed enough bulgars to reedem his gayness

>blinds your eyes

>Gay people have to conquer Bolgars to get accepted in 2018.

Or any enemy of Rome.
If some gay guy conquers land from the Turks, he's OK in my book.

TRI MORETA

absolute state of the greeks

All we know is that he partied a lot as a kid and was ostensibly celibate later in life. He might have had bitches on the down-low or was just very religious. He had very personal reasons for distrusting women. There's nothing to indicate that he got hard-ons from thinking about naked men.

>Basil 'if you're a bulgar you're not up to par' II
*blinds you*

Attached: Bulgar.png (892x826, 494K)

>just very religious
Yeah, that's the kind of man that blinds 15000 fellow Christians.
>He might have had bitches on the down-low
And yet 0 bastards arose, there was not one person to claim descent from him.

But the fact that he didn't marry in that age is what seals the deal.

Attached: 1520054590418.jpg (600x315, 50K)

Sure thing.

Attached: balkan_map.png (640x453, 131K)

Attached: Pic..jpg (960x720, 121K)

Blinding was considered a mercy for the Byzantines, better than outright execution at least. There might be no bastards but primitive contraception wasn't beyond the Byzantines and there is no mention of a gay lover or at least a favourite male courtier which is common in gay rulers like Edward II.

He could have just as easily been impotent, hated women or was asexual. Homosexuality is a possibility but it shouldn't be viewed as fact, we simply do not know.

>Yeah, that's the kind of man that blinds 15000 fellow Christians.

He viewed them as traitors who were resisting their divinely-appointed ruler. Also, it doesn't matter whether he followed the Gospels to the letter, what matters is what was in his mind. If he was zealous enough to believe that mass murder was the right thing to do, then he could be zealous enough to contain his hard-ons for women.

>And yet 0 bastards arose, there was not one person to claim descent from him.

The whole point of fucking a random peasant woman on the side of the road is that it doesn't become a problem later on. Even if there were bastards they might not know about their paternity or be too scared to challenge any of the emperors who succeeded Basil.

Also if we're going to use the lack of evidence for women companions as evidence for homosexuality, then we could just as well use lack of evidence for sodomy as evidence for the reverse. Basil was unpopular with the aristocracy; he survived two civil wars in his youth and a conspiracy in his old age. Plenty of people had good reason to gossip and badmouth him behind his back, but we never hear anything about homosexual relations.

>But the fact that he didn't marry in that age is what seals the deal.

He already had heirs in his brother and three nieces. He likely did not want a son to grow up in the same environment he did. He had a shitty childhood growing up as a puppet emperor without a father figure. His grandfather had gone through the same shit. He also was completely unwilling to trust any woman; his own mother was a prime suspect for the murder of both his father and grandfather and she was proven to have been an accessory to the murder of his stepfather. He did not want to share power with any woman.

Its also possible he didn't want to upset the political situation, marriage would show favour to another family, by keeping his options open every noble family was kept hoping for a marriage. Maybe he was hoping for a smooth transition of power and was attempting to avoid a civil war between any children he could father and his brother and his children. Remember that just because a man is gay doesn't mean he needed to avoid marriage and have children. A homosexual members of the aristocracy were still expected to marry and have children. His decision to not marry and have children is seperate from his own sexual orientation.

fucking basil

Attached: index.jpg (281x179, 5K)

>tfw we live in a post apocalyptic nightmare and ww1 was the apocalypse

we really did blew it all to hell

Attached: Planet of the apes.jpg (998x561, 119K)

>Knyazka changes his title to Tsar
Cute.

> becomes everybodys bitch
>8% literal turks,5% gypsies and 5% pomaks
GG,bulrarshits, but try harder next time.

Based Basil the Bulgar Skullfucker

>becomes everybodys bitch
you mean "made everybody their bitch"

Morrowind?

i wonder what the romanians in it were doing
sheepfucking arouind the carpathians?

>gets beaten by croatia
>gets blinded by byzantines
>gets btfo by ottomans
only thing bulgarian empire was good at was raping serbs

And that's all that matters. :)

Wish more countries did that nowadays.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Velbazhd

Austria-Hungary

Attached: Mario.jpg (600x1024, 47K)

...

One battle doesn't mean much compared to Serbia being dominated / conquered by Bulgaria numerous times from 9th to 13th centuries

Attached: simeon.jpg (563x463, 74K)

Poor Tomislav, he had no idea what he had done.

?

Attached: Superior Chinese tactics.png (500x429, 97K)

Attached: hindsight.jpg (1920x915, 609K)

That probably never happened but whatever. Croats didn't have a ruler that spoke their language since 11th century. If you wanna talk about "dominated/conquered"...

>We were raped, b-but so were these other guys! L-look!

I'm only saying that because you're clearly a Croat or at least a Bosniak, and you assume some position of superiority. If you're Bosniak, you aren't even worthy of a comment from a historical perspective.

I'm a Croat, but come on, I'm surely not going to take a discussion about who was stronger in the 10th century seriously.

But I'd always rather be cucked by the west, rather than raped by the Turks for 500 years.

>this is what serbs believe
>conveniently ignore defacto autonomy as was manifested throughout completely autonomous nobles, diets and bans

whatever makes you feel better

Serbs also had ''de facto autonomy'' within Ottoman Empire. And some Sultans could speak Serbo-Croatian.

>Serbs also had ''de facto autonomy'' within Ottoman Empire
only from ~1820 to 1878

And Croatia had it's separate parliament under Hungary and under Austria.

They did try to undermine it everywhere they could (dividing regions, using the Military Frontier, Statuta Valachorum..etc), but there is a continuity of statehood.

A lot of documents had to be approved by the Croatian Diet in order to take effect. For example, even the Pragmatic Sanction to accept Maria Theresia as the empress had a special proposition for the Diet to be approved.

The Croatian Diet always insisted that they entered both the personal union with Hungary willingly and then in 1527, invited the Habsburgs to help protect agains the Ottoman threat.

The very fact that the Trialism movement in the Empire shows that they acknowledged the existence of the Croatian kingdom as a part of the empire and not just a province.

There's always finer linings and political plays and struggle for authority and all of that and of course, but our nobility always tried to protect the special rights of Croats inside the states.

These are troubled regions and it's not easy to maintain an independent state smashed between empires, cultures and religions.

More than half of the ppl that comment here probably are from countries that weren’t even an idea when Bulgaria was an empire.
Pretty often byzantines armies scattered before comming to bulgarian inlands.
You guys should be more balanced when speaking for things that happened so long ago...

Today there is Bulgaria, but no Byzantia..
Today half of Europe comes to Black Sea to get robbed (legally) and their women to get banged(germany, scandinavia, dutch, french and poles mostly).
Today bulgarians are bulgarians, they hate muslims and immigrants, also don’t give shit about genderless West.

You guys get my point, don’t ya

>Actually believing he blinded 15,000

тъпaк

Yes. When they got tired of sheepfucking, they decided to make a new empire and larp as bulgarians.

Attached: Bulgaria-Ivan_Asen_2.png (1982x2113, 1.04M)