This is Peak Eastern Europe/Balkans

[Deleted member 10913]

>Holy cities back however the idiot romans tried to attack us for no reason and we fought it out on manzikert.

Whats the name of the battle where they attacked seljuks ?

>fatimids
They were founded by maghrebis lol

They where shia, idk who found it but there was was in egypt at that time. Can you imagine Iran was sunni egypt was shia at one point in history.

The battle of manzikert 1071 is what it's called.

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

My brother said that those who didnt know will have a special test at the judgement day

Exact, that is the test i think, they will be ordered to obey Allah and enter Hell, and if they obey they will go to Jannah

 

[goat2x]

*imperial borders that aren't fixed.

I stated that a nation can't take any other role then the 'agressor' in imperial times. seeing this as moral or not does not change the fact. Right now it is not much diffrent to only diffrence is that strong countries don't need to go to war in a clasic sense. They can just bomb a country to the ground or empose sanctions because they are able to do that.

So the 'peacefull balkans' tried to help the 'peacfull eastern romans" who just happened to tried to destroy the Turks off guard.. yea right..
I can simply argue the same. The romans attacked us and we retalliated. The balkans chose to help rome so we also retalliated against them.
In a reversel of fortunes the Turks tried to migrate to Syria on the orders of tge caliph at that time. On our way the romans attacked us and they lost.

If there wasn't a convenant between nations war is morally justified for both.

1. Most of the balkan states did not have this with us

2. If they had they broke it multiple times.

3. Like rome they weren't passive and would likely attack us if we didn't at first hand.

4. Nations are fixed by there geography so something like 'running away' like we see in animals isn't possible. This forces every nation to be a agressor.

still there are borders stop trying to act like it was time with tribes and shit doesnt make sense,especially if we argue a nation that came from the middle east we both agree they had no reason to be there except conquer
your base arguement is bs

like i said its moral or not might not matter to you cuz you are the agressor(which exists clearly your bs arguement doesnt holds up)
also what would a 15century country would need terrotoriy more than a 21century country? you dont even make sense

are u talking about the crusades or what?
and stop trying to generalize all balkans lmfao
their reason for attacking balkans + etc wasnt beucase "once they attacked us" its bright as light, it was also hundreds of years before that so you think every war is justifiable cuz once they were probably attacked by a nation? LOL
also balkans chose to help the BYZANTHINES in their own country and because of jerusalem.


1,?
2,?

3, ofc they would you were in their terrotiry
4, no one is in their home country one isnt

 

[Deleted member 10987]

They where shia, idk who found it but there was was in egypt at that time. Can you imagine Iran was sunni egypt was shia at one point in history.

The battle of manzikert 1071 is what it's called.

But before manzikert ?

>Can you imagine Iran was sunni egypt was shia at one point in history.

History change a lot
Only 600 years ago
America was Full Native and the Aztec empire was thriving


And the fatimids were founded by Berber Kutamas tribes

 

[goat2x]

*imperial borders that aren't fixed.

I stated that a nation can't take any other role then the 'agressor' in imperial times. seeing this as moral or not does not change the fact. Right now it is not much diffrent to only diffrence is that strong countries don't need to go to war in a clasic sense. They can just bomb a country to the ground or empose sanctions because they are able to do that.

So the 'peacefull balkans' tried to help the 'peacfull eastern romans" who just happened to tried to destroy the Turks off guard.. yea right..
I can simply argue the same. The romans attacked us and we retalliated. The balkans chose to help rome so we also retalliated against them.
In a reversel of fortunes the Turks tried to migrate to Syria on the orders of tge caliph at that time. On our way the romans attacked us and they lost.

If there wasn't a convenant between nations war is morally justified for both.

1. Most of the balkan states did not have this with us

2. If they had they broke it multiple times.

3. Like rome they weren't passive and would likely attack us if we didn't at first hand.

4. Nations are fixed by there geography so something like 'running away' like we see in animals isn't possible. This forces every nation to be a agressor.

+ you think border is a border cuz of walls ALMFAO

 

[Deleted member 10987]

That is really another wide subject al khawa dialy, it is a complex matter

Sometimes when i say the west i talk about China too hahahaha

I think the West died with WW1/WW2

 

[goat2x]

To spread religion ?

spreading religion by abducting children from their parents is pretty sad i think

 

[Deleted member 10913]

still there are borders stop trying to act like it was time with tribes and shit doesnt make sense,especially if we argue a nation that came from the middle east we both agree they had no reason to be there except conquer
your base arguement is bs

like i said its moral or not might not matter to you cuz you are the agressor(which exists clearly your bs arguement doesnt holds up)
also what would a 15century country would need terrotoriy more than a 21century country? you dont even make sense

are u talking about the crusades or what?
and stop trying to generalize all balkans lmfao
their reason for attacking balkans + etc wasnt beucase "once they attacked us" its bright as light, it was also hundreds of years before that so you think every war is justifiable cuz once they were probably attacked by a nation? LOL
also balkans chose to help the BYZANTHINES in their own country and because of jerusalem.


1,?
2,?

3, ofc they would you were in their terrotiry
4, no one is in their home country one isnt

+ you think border is a border cuz of walls ALMFAO

No man i don't think borders are walls. Borders in imperial days where not fixed in the sense that it could be breeched if there wasn't any convenant that kept 'x' country from attack any other country. In the case that there wasn't a conventant it was moral imo because there is no other choice.
1) as a country you can't avoid conflict.
2) in imperial times you either exist by absorbing nations or you die out.
What makes thia imoral? I don't understand you because to be a nation means you are a agressor from default. You should in this case also argue that nations should desolve them selves. In this point the Ottomans are also moral in the sense that having less nations=less conflict

* remember the balkans only turned into a conflict point after the absence of single power.

also what would a 15century country would need terrotoriy more than a 21century country?

They need it because there is no constant convenant that prevents x country to attack the other. If we didn't get to the balkans someone else would and we still would deal with that problem.

Even right now geography is what detirmenes a nations behavior. For example a country like russia can only push westwards not that they want to do it because their whole survival dependands on this. A nation simply can't be passive otherwise it wouldn't exsist.

are u talking about the crusades or what?
and stop trying to generalize all balkans lmfao
their reason for attacking balkans + etc wasnt beucase "once they attacked us" its bright as light, it was also hundreds of years before that so you think every war is justifiable cuz once they were probably attacked by a nation? LOL
also balkans chose to help the BYZANTHINES in their own country and because of jerusalem.

"Because of jerusalem" well it didn't turn out good to persue it. It was land from rome that was agressive in all it's essence. Even more then any country from the middle east, that you might believe are inheritly more agressive.

also balkans chose to help the BYZANTHINES

That's the point. I can make the argument that you attacked first and from your agressor/defender point 'x' balkan state would be immoral.
Why would a state forget something jfl. The balkan states where able to attack us at points that they where strong even if it was 100 years ago. What prevents them to not attack us again if they gain strength? Yea right nothing prevents that, hence we both are potential agressors.

Even during thw balkan wars serbia did not 'just forget' us and took the agression on bosnians. Genociding it's population as a return in favor. I would say this is immoral because it was a attack not on proportion. We didn't genocide the serbs only occupied them.

The way i see morals in general it is as follows:
1) If someone hits you 1 time you can hit back 1 time.
2) If someone tries to hit you you can hit them before they hit you.

This is what our state applied. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[goat2x]

No man i don't think borders are walls. Borders in imperial days where not fixed in the sense that it could be breeched if there wasn't any convenant that kept 'x' country from attack any other country. In the case that there wasn't a conventant it was moral imo because there is no other choice.
1) as a country you can't avoid conflict.
2) in imperial times you either exist by absorbing nations or you die out.
What makes thia imoral? I don't understand you because to be a nation means you are a agressor from default. You should in this case also argue that nations should desolve them selves. In this point the Ottomans are also moral in the sense that having less nations=less conflict

* remember the balkans only turned into a conflict point after the absence of single power.

They need it because there is no constant convenant that prevents x country to attack the other. If we didn't get to the balkans someone else would and we still would deal with that problem.

Even right now geography is what detirmenes a nations behavior. For example a country like russia can only push westwards not that they want to do it because their whole survival dependands on this. A nation simply can't be passive otherwise it wouldn't exsist.


"Because of jerusalem" well it didn't turn out good to persue it. It was land from rome that was agressive in all it's essence. Even more then any country from the middle east, that you might believe are inheritly more agressive.


That's the point. I can make the argument that you attacked first and from your agressor/defender point 'x' balkan state would be immoral.
Why would a state forget something jfl. The balkan states where able to attack us at points that they where strong even if it was 100 years ago. What prevents them to not attack us again if they gain strength? Yea right nothing prevents that, hence we both are potential agressors.

Even during thw balkan wars serbia did not 'just forget' us and took the agression on bosnians. Genociding it's population as a return in favor. I would say this is immoral because it was a attack not on proportion. We didn't genocide the serbs only occupied them.

The way i see morals in general it is as follows:
1) If someone hits you 1 time you can hit back 1 time.
2) If someone tries to hit you you can hit them before they hit you.

This is what our state applied. Nothing more nothing less.

1, so it was moral cuz they couldnt reach it (vienna or their wanted destination otherwise?)
2, still they had to went there somewhere from middle east

i didnt say this was immoral, i said the acts were immoral, war is subjective. which you clearly adapted already
but if you remember your first arguement was that the ottomans did nothing wrong no slavery no rape or anything. which i said was immoral,
immoral doesnt even make sense cuz they wanted to reach vienna somehow, uncalled?sure, cuz the balkans only helped the romans when it was their religious interest not against ottomans(attack which the ottomans started btw)

the balkans didnt attack first like i said they went to defend jerusalem which the ottomans started, also you ignore that the ottomans wanted territories like vienna and others (like jerusalem) so your (we attacked cuz they might attack us) narrative is worthless


the balkans had every right to attack you since you were in their territory like i said , it was the ottomans in their contient/countries
also you forget that the ottoman balkan wars was 99% of balkan territory (even if you count conquered lands by ottomans)
that makes agressor etc.


basically all your points are it was okay cuz it was needed

the last doesnt even applied here cuz in their original state ottoman/balkans they wouldnt even interfere

 

[Deleted member 10913]

1, so it was moral cuz they couldnt reach it (vienna or their wanted destination otherwise?)
2, still they had to went there somewhere from middle east

i didnt say this was immoral, i said the acts were immoral, war is subjective. which you clearly adapted already
but if you remember your first arguement was that the ottomans did nothing wrong no slavery no rape or anything. which i said was immoral,
immoral doesnt even make sense cuz they wanted to reach vienna somehow, uncalled?sure, cuz the balkans only helped the romans when it was their religious interest not against ottomans(attack which the ottomans started btw)

the balkans didnt attack first like i said they went to defend jerusalem which the ottomans started, also you ignore that the ottomans wanted territories like vienna and others (like jerusalem) so your (we attacked cuz they might attack us) narrative is worthless


the balkans had every right to attack you since you were in their territory like i said , it was the ottomans in their contient/countries
also you forget that the ottoman balkan wars was 99% of balkan territory (even if you count conquered lands by ottomans)
that makes agressor etc.


basically all your points are it was okay cuz it was needed

the last doesnt even applied here cuz in their original state ottoman/balkans they wouldnt even interfere

but if you remember your first arguement was that the ottomans did nothing wrong no slavery no rape or anything.

Man look. I have no knowledge of slavery. Let's not go back there, It' true that i stated that our millitary expansion in the balkans was morally justifieble. All this time i stated the reasons why.

the balkans didnt attack first like i said they went to defend jerusalem which the ottomans started, also you ignore that the ottomans wanted territories like vienna and others (like jerusalem) so your (we attacked cuz they might attack us) narrative is worthless

going to this whole Jerusalem argument is pointless. Like what do you even mean.. Jerusalem was already taken during the advent of Islam. Even here it was the romans wo started by killing Islamic diplomats. They clearly where agressive and wanted war, well they got it and it didn't turn out good for them nor did it turn out good for the balkan nations.

the balkans had every right to attack you since you were in their territory like i said

No man we didn't start at their teritorry neither where the balkans independant. They where part of the roman empire who we have been fighting for ages. Wirh deafeating the romans the balkans came like a package. Obviously no land should be left so we took what we could get, and the rest is history.

basically all your points are it was okay cuz it was needed

Yes, because there was no convenant that the balkans wouldn't attack and it's not like they never tried. The momdnt we turned weaker the balkans attacked.
The moment the mongol joke happened we got attacked. The moment we where in a civilwar we where attacked. I can go on.
The need to attack is not exceptional to the Turks or Muslims. Every nation has this. Like i argued before you can't have a passive nation. Argueing that 'x' nation shouldn't concuer in imperial times means that such nation shouldn't exist. Let me ask it this way. Was it immoral for the Ottomans to exist? If yes then the topic would change if not then you can't see it as immoral that they expanded, that is the main reason of an empire. TO EXPAND.

the last doesnt even applied here cuz in their original state ottoman/balkans they wouldnt even interfere

How would they not interfere? They both the Turks and Balkans interfered with each other because they where in their original state.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Man look. I have no knowledge of slavery. Let's not go back there, It' true that i stated that our millitary expansion in the balkans was morally justifieble. All this time i stated the reasons why.

going to this whole Jerusalem argument is pointless. Like what do you even mean.. Jerusalem was already taken during the advent of Islam. Even here it was the romans wo started by killing Islamic diplomats. They clearly where agressive and wanted war, well they got it and it didn't turn out good for them nor did it turn out good for the balkan nations.

No man we didn't start at their teritorry neither where the balkans independant. They where part of the roman empire who we have been fighting for ages. Wirh deafeating the romans the balkans came like a package. Obviously no land should be left so we took what we could get, and the rest is history.

Yes, because there was no convenant that the balkans wouldn't attack and it's not like they never tried. The momdnt we turned weaker the balkans attacked.
The moment the mongol joke happened we got attacked. The moment we where in a civilwar we where attacked. I can go on.
The need to attack is not exceptional to the Turks or Muslims. Every nation has this. Like i argued before you can't have a passive nation. Argueing that 'x' nation shouldn't concuer in imperial times means that such nation shouldn't exist. Let me ask it this way. Was it immoral for the Ottomans to exist? If yes then the topic would change if not then you can't see it as immoral that they expanded, that is the main reason of an empire. TO EXPAND.


How would they not interfere? They both the Turks and Balkans interfered with each other because they where in their original state.

Virtue is Right but Might always win bro
So we need to be virtuous and mighty

 

[goat2x]

Man look. I have no knowledge of slavery. Let's not go back there, It' true that i stated that our millitary expansion in the balkans was morally justifieble. All this time i stated the reasons why.

going to this whole Jerusalem argument is pointless. Like what do you even mean.. Jerusalem was already taken during the advent of Islam. Even here it was the romans wo started by killing Islamic diplomats. They clearly where agressive and wanted war, well they got it and it didn't turn out good for them nor did it turn out good for the balkan nations.

No man we didn't start at their teritorry neither where the balkans independant. They where part of the roman empire who we have been fighting for ages. Wirh deafeating the romans the balkans came like a package. Obviously no land should be left so we took what we could get, and the rest is history.

Yes, because there was no convenant that the balkans wouldn't attack and it's not like they never tried. The momdnt we turned weaker the balkans attacked.
The moment the mongol joke happened we got attacked. The moment we where in a civilwar we where attacked. I can go on.
The need to attack is not exceptional to the Turks or Muslims. Every nation has this. Like i argued before you can't have a passive nation. Argueing that 'x' nation shouldn't concuer in imperial times means that such nation shouldn't exist. Let me ask it this way. Was it immoral for the Ottomans to exist? If yes then the topic would change if not then you can't see it as immoral that they expanded, that is the main reason of an empire. TO EXPAND.


How would they not interfere? They both the Turks and Balkans interfered with each other because they where in their original state.

it was morally justifiable by what means?
i go back to jerusalem cuz you always say "look the balkans attacked us first!!" when it its just a stupid arguement to make cuz its not true i already explained

hungary,austria,romania came with romans right?also it wasnt a package jfl at this analogy

stop acting like the balkans are one nation btw its historically very untrue, you attacked/conquered the balkans cuz you wanted more land, thats it

you cant have a passive nation but you can clearly tell who is the attacker and the defender at this point i dont even know why i am arguing this shit with you its just meaningless you are too dumb and one sided
so by that meaning you can attack every nation in the world cuz they might attack you when you become their neighbour jfl
so dumb man
you counquered them cuz you wanted to expand in europe

 

[goat2x]

Man look. I have no knowledge of slavery. Let's not go back there, It' true that i stated that our millitary expansion in the balkans was morally justifieble. All this time i stated the reasons why.

going to this whole Jerusalem argument is pointless. Like what do you even mean.. Jerusalem was already taken during the advent of Islam. Even here it was the romans wo started by killing Islamic diplomats. They clearly where agressive and wanted war, well they got it and it didn't turn out good for them nor did it turn out good for the balkan nations.

No man we didn't start at their teritorry neither where the balkans independant. They where part of the roman empire who we have been fighting for ages. Wirh deafeating the romans the balkans came like a package. Obviously no land should be left so we took what we could get, and the rest is history.

Yes, because there was no convenant that the balkans wouldn't attack and it's not like they never tried. The momdnt we turned weaker the balkans attacked.
The moment the mongol joke happened we got attacked. The moment we where in a civilwar we where attacked. I can go on.
The need to attack is not exceptional to the Turks or Muslims. Every nation has this. Like i argued before you can't have a passive nation. Argueing that 'x' nation shouldn't concuer in imperial times means that such nation shouldn't exist. Let me ask it this way. Was it immoral for the Ottomans to exist? If yes then the topic would change if not then you can't see it as immoral that they expanded, that is the main reason of an empire. TO EXPAND.


How would they not interfere? They both the Turks and Balkans interfered with each other because they where in their original state.

you "reason" why it was morally justifiable is because "they might attack us " jfl
even when we know that ottomans wanted vienna a long time ago and 99% of wars happened in the defender land( even if the ottoman troops were on conquered land) its just false

 

[goat2x]

Man look. I have no knowledge of slavery. Let's not go back there, It' true that i stated that our millitary expansion in the balkans was morally justifieble. All this time i stated the reasons why.

going to this whole Jerusalem argument is pointless. Like what do you even mean.. Jerusalem was already taken during the advent of Islam. Even here it was the romans wo started by killing Islamic diplomats. They clearly where agressive and wanted war, well they got it and it didn't turn out good for them nor did it turn out good for the balkan nations.

No man we didn't start at their teritorry neither where the balkans independant. They where part of the roman empire who we have been fighting for ages. Wirh deafeating the romans the balkans came like a package. Obviously no land should be left so we took what we could get, and the rest is history.

Yes, because there was no convenant that the balkans wouldn't attack and it's not like they never tried. The momdnt we turned weaker the balkans attacked.
The moment the mongol joke happened we got attacked. The moment we where in a civilwar we where attacked. I can go on.
The need to attack is not exceptional to the Turks or Muslims. Every nation has this. Like i argued before you can't have a passive nation. Argueing that 'x' nation shouldn't concuer in imperial times means that such nation shouldn't exist. Let me ask it this way. Was it immoral for the Ottomans to exist? If yes then the topic would change if not then you can't see it as immoral that they expanded, that is the main reason of an empire. TO EXPAND.


How would they not interfere? They both the Turks and Balkans interfered with each other because they where in their original state.

i also like how you switch up on the balkans
in one reply they are part of the romans in another they are very strong trying to attack the ottomans at all costs by helping to romans

 

[Deleted member 10913]

go back to jerusalem cuz you always say "look the balkans attacked us first!!" when it its just a stupid arguement to make cuz its not true i already explained

The reason i get back to this point is because your argument can also be applied here. The balkan states are agressors we where the defenders.

hungary,austria,romania came with romans right?also it wasnt a package jfl at this analogy

the land that let them border us with them however came.

stop acting like the balkans are one nation btw its historically very untrue, you attacked/conquered the balkans cuz you wanted more land, thats it

Ofcourse. Again that's the main objective of an empire.

so by that meaning you can attack every nation in the world cuz they might attack you when you become their neighbour jfl
so dumb man

Well yes if there is no convenant that says otherwise it's all fair game.

you "reason" why it was morally justifiable is because "they might attack us " jfl
even when we know that ottomans wanted vienna a long time ago and 99% of wars happened in the defender land

Again yes. If someone has his hand lifted at you or points a gun will you wait for him to hit or shoot?! Obviously not you attack before hand. You might have attacked first but that doesn't mean that you are the agressor.

i also like how you switch up on the balkans
in one reply they are independent helping the romans in another they are very strong trying to attack the ottomans at all costs

What's here to make from? Some periods in history the states in the balkan where independant/strong. In Other points they where subjects or even provinces. History of the Seljuks happens at a diffrent time then the Ottomans.

This is the time during the seljuks. The balkans where all subject.

The 1200s

And finally the early Islamic Turkish frontier. Rome has land in the balkans. Conquering them meant conquering the the lands in the balkans. Serbia & bulgaria started to meddle with our wars against rome. Unwise move because they are now company to them and there demise. The same can be said about hungary, romania or wathever nation there was.
Idk where you got this whole vienna point. The city did not mean anything to us other then breaking habsburg power in Europe, this was also the reason we allied france who was their natural enemy.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Jfl
You quoted my post but there is nothing

 

[goat2x]

The reason i get back to this point is because your argument can also be applied here. The balkan states are agressors we where the defenders.

the land that let them border us with them however came.

Ofcourse. Again that's the main objective of an empire.



Well yes if there is no convenant that says otherwise it's all fair game.


Again yes. If someone has his hand lifted at you or points a gun will you wait for him to hit or shoot?! Obviously not you attack before hand. You might have attacked first but that doesn't mean that you are the agressor.

What's here to make from? Some periods in history the states in the balkan where independant/strong. In Other points they where subjects or even provinces. History of the Seljuks happens at a diffrent time then the Ottomans.
View attachment 1006033
This is the time during the seljuks. The balkans where all subject.
View attachment 1006036
The 1200s
View attachment 1006039

And finally the early Islamkc Turkish frontier. Rome has land in the balkans. Conquerimg them ment conquering the the lands in the balkans. Serbia & bulgaria started to meddle with our wars against rome. Unwise move because they are now company to them and there demise. The same can be said about hungary, romania or wathever nation there was.
Idk where you got this whole vienna point. The city did not mean anything to us other then breaking habsburg power in Europe, this was also the reason we allied france who was their natural enemy.

1, no it cant and i explained why, the balkans didnt attack ottomans they went there to defend their religious symbol.
2, so it was moral to colonize and destroy them right? lol
3, then what the fuck are you arguing? you literally have no point other than this, this whole we wuz defensive and shit is worthless you can just say we were expanding thats it.
4, again with this fucking stupid analogy jfl, like i said you should atack every neighbour then cuz he has the ability to attack you
(even doe all the wars happened in balkan defense terrotorys)

5, no im just saying funny how you contradict yourself
when you took over byzanthine it was a package but when the jerusalem fall it was a strong independent region

6, yes you finally admit that you werent just attacking cuz the balkans helped the jerusalem war, you attacked (every one and everything )to gain terrotiry you didnt fear the balkans you just wanted to expands
thanks for proving this?LOL

what provinces hungary,romania had that was in rome hands at that time???
(btw all of these is meaningless right now cuz you already admitted, they didnt particurarly played defensive)

 

[Deleted member 10913]

1, no it cant and i explained why, the balkans didnt attack ottomans they went there to defend their religious symbol.
2, so it was moral to colonize and destroy them right? lol
3, then what the fuck are you arguing? you literally have no point other than this, this whole we wuz defensive and shit is worthless you can just say we were expanding thats it.
4, again with this fucking stupid analogy jfl, like i said you should atack every neighbour then cuz he has the ability to attack you
(even doe all the wars happened in balkan defense terrotorys)

5, no im just saying funny how you contradict yourself
when you took over byzanthine it was a package but when the jerusalem fall it was a strong independent region

6, yes you finally admit that you werent just attacking cuz the balkans helped the jerusalem war, you attacked (every one and everything )to gain terrotiry you didnt fear the balkans you just wanted to expands
thanks for proving this?LOL

what provinces hungary,romania had that was in rome hands at that time???
(btw all of these is meaningless right now cuz you already admitted, they didnt particurarly played defensive)

Man i can't go on. The point is not that we where defensive or we weren't im battle. In imperial times every attack=defense.

when you took over byzanthine it was a package but when the jerusalem fall it was a strong independent region

I don't remember about balkans being strong During early medieval times.. serbia at one point was an empire challenging us. Rome had balkan states that came to us with wars against them

Read again what i said. Can't take this on forever jfl

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Man i can't go on. The point is not that we where defensive or we weren't im battle. In imperial times every attack=defense.

I don't remember about balkans being strong During early medieval times.. serbia at one point was an empire challenging us. Rome had balkan states that came to us with wars against them

Read again what i said. Can't take this on forever jfl

You gonna argue for eternity JFL

 

[Deleted member 10913]

You gonna argue for eternity JFL

It's over.

 

[goat2x]

Man i can't go on. The point is not that we where defensive or we weren't im battle. In imperial times every attack=defense.

I don't remember about balkans being strong During early medieval times.. serbia at one point was an empire challenging us. Rome had balkan states that came to us with wars against them

Read again what i said. Can't take this on forever jfl

1, no i already explained why it isnt, by your arguement you can fucking take over the whole world and say that its defensive
you= thinking every nation that isnt with your country is enemy lmfao


2, i didnt state this, i just mimicked your thinking lol

 

[Deleted member 10987]

The post was about Eastern Roman Empire under Basil 2 and it went about this retarded conflict

 

[Melo95]

My family made a deal with the Sultan that we would convert if he gave us land, and thats what happened, has nothing to do with rape or enslavement. I know this history from my family records

A friend of mine's family literally had to the change the ending of their last name to disguise themselves to avoid getting killed/converted. So your family was Christian orthodox before?

 

[goat2x]

A friend of mine's family literally had to the change the ending of their last name to disguise themselves to avoid getting killed/converted. So your family was Christian orthodox before?

its indeed a shameful act i cant lie

 

[Deleted member 10913]

1, no i already explained why it isnt, by your arguement you can fucking take over the whole world and say that its defensive
you= thinking every nation that isnt with your country is enemy lmfao


2, i didnt state this, i just mimicked your thinking lol

Aaah man ofcourse without a convenant every state is a natural enemy. What do you even think empires where trying to do. Christian aswell as Islamic and even chinese had concepts like God's kingdom, mandate of heaven, Nizam Alem. What where balkan nations even doing in Jerusalem? What was Serbia even trying? Why name your country Romenia? All empires function the same way.

For imperial times you can make 3 cases out of it.
1) all are moral
2) all where immoral
3) 'X" believe made expansion moral
If Christianity is true all they did for border expension is moral. If the tought of conficus was true all china did for expansion is moral. Every nation is by default the agressor.
My view that everyone holds a gun at someone is accurate. You either waited to get shot or shot first. All are right to shoot first if there wasn't a convenant.

 

[goat2x]

Aaah man ofcourse without a convenant every state is a natural enemy. What do you even think empires where trying to do. Christian aswell as Islamic and even chinese had concepts like God's kingdom, mandate of heaven, Nizam Alem. What where balkan nations even doing in Jerusalem? What was Serbia even trying? Why name your country Romenia? All empires function the same way.

For imperial times you can make 3 cases out of it.
1) all are moral
2) all where immoral
3) 'X" believe made expansion moral
If Christianity is true all they did for border expension is moral. If the tought of conficus was true all china did for expansion is moral. Every nation is by default is the agressor.
My view that everyone holds a gun at someone is accurate. You either waited to get shot or shot first. All are right to shoot first if there wasn't a convenant.

its beucase they DEFENDED their religius city (key word)
not an enemy not a friend, it doesnt give right to fucking conquer them cuz they might attack us? its clystar clear that they wanted to expand.

your analogy is just retarded again like i said there were countries that didnt do shit
so you say its moral cuz you want to expand? lol okay

every nation cant be the agressor especially if they are in their own fucking land, battling in their own fucking land

just stop this already makes no sense you gun shit is worthless maybe add there that you were with a gun in someones home LOL
like i said by that viewpoint just take over the whole fucking world enslaving everybody + destroying the land cuz it might have been an enemy
l

 

[goat2x]

Aaah man ofcourse without a convenant every state is a natural enemy. What do you even think empires where trying to do. Christian aswell as Islamic and even chinese had concepts like God's kingdom, mandate of heaven, Nizam Alem. What where balkan nations even doing in Jerusalem? What was Serbia even trying? Why name your country Romenia? All empires function the same way.

For imperial times you can make 3 cases out of it.
1) all are moral
2) all where immoral
3) 'X" believe made expansion moral
If Christianity is true all they did for border expension is moral. If the tought of conficus was true all china did for expansion is moral. Every nation is by default the agressor.
My view that everyone holds a gun at someone is accurate. You either waited to get shot or shot first. All are right to shoot first if there wasn't a convenant.

so all of your arguements are just based upon that islam is moral therefore its right? thats pretty weak

 

[Deleted member 10913]

so all of your arguements are just based upon that islam is moral therefore its right? thats pretty weak

No man it isn't read again.

its beucase they DEFENDED their religius city (key word)
not an enemy not a friend, it doesnt give right to fucking conquer them cuz they might attack us? its clystar clear that they wanted to expand.

They defended a city that is not in their land. So to defend that city you ally rome which was a historic enemy to the Turks.

like i said there were countries that didnt do shit

Which country didn't do anything? When i state serbian expansion you overlook it. Every country was agressive otherwise they wouldn't be countries.

every nation cant be the agressor especially if they are in their own fucking land, battling in their own fucking land

It either happened in our land or in some balkan land. Attacking first is not being the agressor. I'd hope you can atleast agree on this.

Take a look at the early wars we had in the balkan. Note that it talks about the Serbian empire, Bulgarian Empire and not the nation state of...
The moment wr captured adrianople the pope send crusader forces to these countries. To do what exactly? Other then to fight us out of adrianople that we conquered from the romans, not the balkan states.
My analogy is not retarded it is the natural state that imperial states are in.

like i said by that viewpoint just take over the whole fucking world enslaving everybody + destroying the land cuz it might have been an enemy

This was more or less the viewpoint of every empire. The bulgarian, serbian, the hungarian and also the Ottoman Empire. Enslaving and destroying land was not something that was done on average.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

No man it isn't read again.


They defended a city that is not in their land. So to defend that city you ally rome which was a historic enemy to the Turks.

Which country didn't do anything? When i state serbian expansion you overlook it. Every country was agressive otherwise they wouldn't be countries.

It either happened in our land or in some balkan land. Attacking first is not being the agressor. I'd hope you can atleast agree on this.

View attachment 1006148
Take a look at the early wars we had in the balkan. Note that it talks about the Serbian empire, Bulgarian Empire and not the nation state of...
The moment wr captured adrianople the pope send crusader forces to these countries. To do what exactly? Other then to fight us out of adrianople that we conquered from the romans, not the balkan states.
My analogy is not retarded it is the natural state that imperial states are in.

This was more or less the viewpoint of every empire. The bulgarian, serbian, the hungarian and also the Ottoman Empire. Enslaving and destroying land was not something that was done on average.

Didnt serbians were the bodyguards of the sultans ?
They also were ally of ottomans


Jfl at the defenders of europe

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Didnt serbians were the bodyguards of the sultans ?
They also were ally of ottomans


Jfl at the defenders of europe

In some points they where obviously allies to us. These whole 'defenders of europe' argument is just historical revisionism

 

[Deleted member 10987]

In some points they where obviously allies to us. These whole 'defenders of europe' argument is just historical revisionism

Bataille d'Ankara — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

>You defend Europe ?
>yes im the bodyguard of ottoman sultans ans i helped them invading the balkans

 

[goat2x]

No man it isn't read again.


They defended a city that is not in their land. So to defend that city you ally rome which was a historic enemy to the Turks.

Which country didn't do anything? When i state serbian expansion you overlook it. Every country was agressive otherwise they wouldn't be countries.

It either happened in our land or in some balkan land. Attacking first is not being the agressor. I'd hope you can atleast agree on this.

View attachment 1006148
Take a look at the early wars we had in the balkan. Note that it talks about the Serbian empire, Bulgarian Empire and not the nation state of...
The moment wr captured adrianople the pope send crusader forces to these countries. To do what exactly? Other then to fight us out of adrianople that we conquered from the romans, not the balkan states.
My analogy is not retarded it is the natural state that imperial states are in.

This was more or less the viewpoint of every empire. The bulgarian, serbian, the hungarian and also the Ottoman Empire. Enslaving and destroying land was not something that was done on average.

1, they defended a city that ottomans had no business in anyways ? LOL and like i said it was religious intent not against ottomans they were defending
2, where are the austrian soldiers? you just said the sultan wanted vienna cuz it was an important european city therefore admitting that you werent defending you just wanted to attack
3, you cant just defeat a city and say their whole region is yours now? obvsly they will attack back what kind of retard analogy is this?

also ive never heard of this battle and i live in the balkans??

 

[goat2x]

No man it isn't read again.


They defended a city that is not in their land. So to defend that city you ally rome which was a historic enemy to the Turks.

Which country didn't do anything? When i state serbian expansion you overlook it. Every country was agressive otherwise they wouldn't be countries.

It either happened in our land or in some balkan land. Attacking first is not being the agressor. I'd hope you can atleast agree on this.

View attachment 1006148
Take a look at the early wars we had in the balkan. Note that it talks about the Serbian empire, Bulgarian Empire and not the nation state of...
The moment wr captured adrianople the pope send crusader forces to these countries. To do what exactly? Other then to fight us out of adrianople that we conquered from the romans, not the balkan states.
My analogy is not retarded it is the natural state that imperial states are in.

This was more or less the viewpoint of every empire. The bulgarian, serbian, the hungarian and also the Ottoman Empire. Enslaving and destroying land was not something that was done on average.

"The battle was the first attempt to throw the Ottomans from the Balkans with an allied army. There is no record of this battle in any Serbian, Hungarian, papal, or other European sources."
sounds like shit you would make up to justfy it LOL

 

[Deleted member 10913]

View attachment 1006172

Bataille d'Ankara — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

>You defend Europe ?
>yes im the bodyguard of ottoman sultans ans i helped them invading the balkans

Man we really did treat them with respect and I believe that the societies in the balkans where most moral during our rule, because Christianity was in a sense imposed by us. We gave their religious heads athority to rule in our name, this is one of the reasons we could stay there for a long time. To this day wee have greek historians like Dimitri Kitsikis who argues that the best years of Greece was during Ottoman rule.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

"The battle was the first attempt to throw the Ottomans from the Balkans with an allied army. There is no record of this battle in any Serbian, Hungarian, papal, or other European sources."
sounds like shit you would make up to justfy it LOL

Sırpsındığı. Is a battle that took place. The point is these nations became agressive against us at the moment we took adrianople and parts of the straits. In your argument they where agressors then and we where defenders.
It just happened they lost and we gained imperial ground.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

>The Ottoman force included contingents under his sons, Ghazis, Janissaries, Anatolian Muslim vassals,[11] and various European (Balkan Christian[11]) vassals.[12] Among Serbian vassals participating were Stefan Lazarević and Đurađ Branković,[12] and among Albanian were Koja Zakarija, Demetrius Jonima, Gjon Kastrioti, and probably Tanush Major Dukagjin.[13] Christian vassals that did not participate include Zetan Konstantin Balšić.[13] A quarter of the Ottoman troops were recently conquered Tatars.[9]

>Stefan Lazarević and his knights together with Wallachian forces successfully fought off the Timurid assaults and cut through the Mongol ranks three times. Each time Stefan advised Bayezid to break out with him, Bayezid declined to do so. But the Serbians managed to save one of Bayezid's sons and the treasury from the Mongols and made their way to Constantinople. The Serbian troops wore heavy black plate armour which was very effective against the Timurid arrows. Timur admired the Serbian troops who according to him "fight like lions".

JFL THOSE NIGGAS DEFENDED MORE THE OTTOMANS THAN THEIR DEFENDED THEIR LANDS AGAINST THE OTTOMANS WHILE THE OTTOMAN ARMY DISPERSED

AH THE SERBS.... GREAT SAVIORS OF EUROPA

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Man we really did treat them with respect and I believe that the societies in the balkans where most moral during our rule, because Christianity was in a sense imposed by us. We gave their religious heads athority to rule in our name, this is one of the reasons we could stay there for a long time. To this day wee have greek historians like Dimitri Kitsikis who argues that the best years of Greece was during Ottoman rule.

But again you invaded them
Its normal that they are angry
If the balkanites invaded the anatolian beyliks
You would feel the same

 

[goat2x]

Sırpsındığı. Is a battle that took place. The point is these nations became agressive against us at the moment we took adrianople and parts of the straits. In your argument they where agressors then and we where defenders.
It just happened they lost and we gained imperial ground.

that doesnt prove anything
sounds like a narrative someone like you would push that you were the defenders or sum shit

 

[Deleted member 10913]

>The Ottoman force included contingents under his sons, Ghazis, Janissaries, Anatolian Muslim vassals,[11] and various European (Balkan Christian[11]) vassals.[12] Among Serbian vassals participating were Stefan Lazarević and Đurađ Branković,[12] and among Albanian were Koja Zakarija, Demetrius Jonima, Gjon Kastrioti, and probably Tanush Major Dukagjin.[13] Christian vassals that did not participate include Zetan Konstantin Balšić.[13] A quarter of the Ottoman troops were recently conquered Tatars.[9]

>Stefan Lazarević and his knights together with Wallachian forces successfully fought off the Timurid assaults and cut through the Mongol ranks three times. Each time Stefan advised Bayezid to break out with him, Bayezid declined to do so. But the Serbians managed to save one of Bayezid's sons and the treasury from the Mongols and made their way to Constantinople. The Serbian troops wore heavy black plate armour which was very effective against the Timurid arrows. Timur admired the Serbian troops who according to him "fight like lions".

JFL THOSE NIGGAS DEFENDED MORE THE OTTOMANS THAN THEIR DEFENDED THEIR LANDS AGAINST THE OTTOMANS WHILE THE OTTOMAN ARMY DISPERSED

AH THE SERBS.... GREAT SAVIORS OF EUROPA


View attachment 1006199
View attachment 1006202

I am caging
Wahahahaha

These where paid soldiers, also we where benelovent rulers they saw what happened to russia during the mongol yoke so the dung in their pants was enough for them to ally us

 

[Deleted member 10913]

But again you invaded them
Its normal that they are angry
If the balkanites invaded the anatolian beyliks
You would feel the same

Well if we attacked them and we lost.. i can be angry however can i make a moral case out of this?

 

[goat2x]

Sırpsındığı. Is a battle that took place. The point is these nations became agressive against us at the moment we took adrianople and parts of the straits. In your argument they where agressors then and we where defenders.
It just happened they lost and we gained imperial ground.

also im reading that it inflicts other historical data

 

[Deleted member 10913]

that doesnt prove anything
sounds like a narrative someone like you would push that you were the defenders or sum shit

Oh Lord give me patience.

Man at this point you just dismiss my arguments and the evidence i give.

It's over.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

I am caging
Wahahahaha

These where paid soldiers, also whe where benelovent rulers they saw what happened to russia during the mongol yoke so the dung in their pants was enough for them to ally us

It was timurids tho
You think serbs were scared so they fought hard like that ?

 

[goat2x]

Oh Lord give me patience.

Man at this point you just dismiss my arguments and the evidence i give.

It's over.

ofc cuz you evidences are fucking shit lmfao
the hungarian king literally went towar against bosnians but you want me to believe that in the same year he fought with them lmfao

 

[Deleted member 10913]

It was timurids tho
You think serbs were scared so they fought hard like that ?

Timurids where the last nomad empire. In Sivas he had his elephants stomped on the local christian population.

 

[goat2x]

Oh Lord give me patience.

Man at this point you just dismiss my arguments and the evidence i give.

It's over.

also what terrotiry was this by this time? ottoman or serb?

 

[Deleted member 10913]

ofc cuz you evidences are fucking shit lmfao
the hungarian king literally went towar against bosnians but you want me to believe that in the same year he fought with them lmfao

Smh, man search it up. Sırpsındığı was one of the last crusades against the Turks. After that you had like the holy le
Leguea wars that where also summond by the pope @lucidtobacco

 

[goat2x]

Smh, man search it up. Sırpsındığı was one of the last crusades against the Turks. After that you had like the holy le
Leguea wars that where also summond by the pope @lucidtobacco

i searched it up literally no scripture on it by other sources than ottoman

 

[Deleted member 10913]

also what terrotiry was this by this time? ottoman or serb?

Ours but that doesn't mean anything like i told before

 

[Deleted member 10913]

i searched it up literally no scripture on it by other sources than ottoman

So?