Explain yourselves Byzaboos. The Ottomans clearly showed that the potential for a great empire was there in the Orient. Meanwhile the Byzantine Empire declined for centuries.
Anyone who isn't a byzaboo can tell you that the byzantines destroyed themselves over centuries due to constant civil wars and succession disputes but byzfags will always blame "muh 4th crusade" and western powers not bending over backwards to save the self-destructive rump state when they had their own problems to deal with.
>>18064006Byzantines were femboys>Roma invicta
>>18064006The Byzantines should have united with the west and moved the capital back to Rome when Charlemagne was crowned.
>>18064006>great empireThat place was a shithole, literary an evil orc empire that only destroyed and never built anything.
>>18064020Coping whitoid detectedIt was the most glorious and long lasting empire of the pre-industrial era
>>18064024I will cut your head off and shit down your neck.
>>18064006>great empireIn what sense?
>>18064047The finest dancing boys west of Tehran.
>>18064020The Ottoman Empire surpassed Byzantium in every imaginable metric. >>18064047When the Ottomans united the East they become a hegemon for at least two centuries. So the wealth, population, trade routes etc. were there, the Byzantines were just unable to utilize it.
>>18064069>The Ottoman Empire surpassed Byzantium in every imaginable metric.'cept not
>>18064011I read an entire book on byzantine taxes which sounds boring but was actually great. Basically their semi feudal system fucked them and generals and soldiers had land privileges with no taxes, which then passed on to other classes. Many byzantine peasants were extremely happy to be under ottoman control because it meant less taxes
>>18064073Name one in which it didn't
>>18064069>When the Ottomans united the East they become a hegemon for at least two centuries.I don't deny that they were an empire, but what makes them particularly great compared to other empires?>So the wealth, population, trade routes etc. were there, the Byzantines were just unable to utilize it.The Romans and Byzantines utilized it for centuries. The Ottomans then conquered them and continued to utilize what was already there.
>>18064084every single one really
>>18064088Then it should be easy for you to give specific examples
>>18064089Animal welfare
>>18064080>Many byzantine peasants were extremely happy to be under ottoman control because it meant less taxesYou asked them?
>>18064024Then why did it need slaves?
>>18064159Every empire had slaves until the 19th century.
>>18064164They continued after every civilised country banned it, mainly due to islam being okay with slavesWhy did it only stop in 1920 with the collapse of the empire (disregarding for now that other muslim states continued slavery until the 1950/60/70’s)
>>18064164Empires still have slaves, it's an obsolete economc system, not antiquated desu
>>18064164The Byzantines didnt
>>18064175Communists don’t count as people tho
>>18064171Because legally banning slavery is nothing more than pedantry, it's 18th century moralfagging, mostly hypocritical to boot.>>18064178No christian slaves to my knowledge, they just so happened to have extreme taxes,an almost totalitarian religion which was governed on the Caesar's whim, constant civil wars to kill those few serfs they couldn't starve to death and slaves. Also, weren't both empires a mix between guilds and semi-feudal relations economcally? I don't exactly know of massive slave farms a la Americas in the Ottoman empire either. In fact the only places i know of that had that problem were ancient Rome and the Americas desu
>>18064191Sick of you moslem brownoids talking out if your ass.
>>18064191>banning slavery is moralfaggingOnly if your sick man empire is relying upon it, give a real argument or concede that you are brown and wrong
>>18064191>extreme taxes,an almost totalitarian religion which was governed on the Caesar's whim, constant civil wars to kill those few serfs they couldn't starve to death and slaves.But enough about the Ottomans.
>>18064191Actually it went on longer and took more people then the the North Atlantic slave trade, plus it was Europeans who ended slavery (against your wishes)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery>In some Muslim countries in the Arabian peninsula and Africa, slavery was abolished in the second half of the 20th century: 1962 in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Oman in 1970, Mauritania in 1981.[26] However, slavery has been documented in recent years, despite its illegality, in Muslim-majority countries in Africa including Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.[27]Big oof, Whites were on the moon and Islam still had slaves
>>18064194>>18064197Pure seethe, moralfags use slaves the moment they're cornered. i genuinely trust greedy capitalists more in their stinginess to not pay for lodging,food and guards to "work" a nigger or a "citizen", be it for war, work or servitude. To say that "banning" slavery solves the issue is abhorrent and demeans the work of entrepreneurs, freemen and monks, those of actual moral repute who for the most part did solve the issue of slavery through economy and philisophy. To the voe of the moralfag who can no longer grandstand and thus has to become a progressive instead of an abolitionist to moralfag in an even more delusional context.>>18064199Kek>>18064200Can you recommend any books on the matter? To my knowledge slavery wasn't an economic driver in the Ottoman or byzantine empires as it was with Rome or the various American states. The ottomans "banned" slavery among other things in 1858 to suck off britain and it was legally banned in 1960, on both instances to little effect both socially and economically with nationalism taking center stage instead. It would be quite odd to imagine haremfags driving >More people than the atlantic slave tradeDid they just fucking eat the slaves or were they just sold to the arabs like Zanzibar?
>>18064292The barbary states and ottomans castrated their slaves to strip the last vestiges of humanity from themAlso please post a source for ottomans banning slavery in 1858, because everything I’ve found says it was with the final collapse of their slave empire after ww1
>>18064301Sorry, that was the decree banning nigger trading in 1857. Besides being a bit of a shitshow like the rest of the empire at the time especially Hedjaz, ottomans gradually dismantled slavery as a major instuition without civil unrest or note from 1830 to 1930 with help of foreign pressure in 1880-90s, a transfer from house slaves to house maids starting in around 1908, state mandated crackdowns from 1933 and the state outlaw in full in 1964. As the republican Turkey wasn't exactly a slave state. This isn't exactly a bad or horrible end to slavery as you claim. It lands at roughly a middle point between America which killed 500,000 americans and scarred the nation and Britain which antiquated slavery in favor of free, industrial labor. Had the Ottomans invested the debt money in the 1850s to industry instead of the next Russo-Turkish war they would have likely antiquated it far faster among more important matters like several genocides being avoided and possibly a more peaceful rule or collapse. >But they actually called their slaves slaves until 1908Yes and that's a good thing . State sanctioning the abolishment of slavery is the only moral way regarding slavery as opposed to state regulation or outlawing of slavery, with the former being outright immoral and the latter being looting rather than liberation. Had the byzantines been somehow present to the ottoman time period, i fail to see how they would be wholesome big chungus liberators instead of hurriedly rushing their serfs to slave labor in factories and colonies a la Russia >TL;DROttomans were mediocre in abolishing slavery, neither as bad as the americans or arabs nor as good as the english As slavery wasn't a major node of production but present in both empires, i still fail to see what kind of moral superiority this gives to the byzantines besides ottos enacting guild monopolies with high taxes + slaves barbary raids instead of serfs + slaves from vikang raids
>>18064452I honestly thought it was abolished at the collapse of the empire after ww1, but if it ended in 1964 as you say then it is much much worse not a point of redemptionWhy is Islam so permissive towards slavery whereas Christian countries were at the forefront of abolition?
>>18064452>TL;DR>Ottomans were mediocre in abolishing slavery, neither as bad as the americans or arabs nor as good as the englishThe English went into massive debt to abolish slavery and the Americans went to war over it around 100-150 before you did it so I don’t get why you are pretending that you did it better, you enslaved more bodies, for a longer period and only stopped when you got beaten, everyone else realised it was wrong and took action a century before you were forced into it
>>18064527They abolished it in Istanbul in 1857 and then in the rest of the empire in 1908. All things considered it's not that terrible considering how bad shape they were in the 19th century.
>>18064527>Christian countries were at the forefront of abolition?Because christianity is proto-bolshevism written by a genitally mutilated pharisaic rabbi mohel jew to undermine Europe.
>>18064020Destruction is an Aryan characteristic. The Asiatic is parasitic and corrupting, but incapable of destroying. If what you say is true, than the Ottoman Empire was undoubtedly Aryan.
I encourage all Anti-Muslimites to enter this thread for the debasement of these Mudslime invaders. >>18063793
>>18064546The british are the best example of anti slavery despite the moralfags and their massive debts, not because of it. What abolitionists achieve is essentially socialism as the ban on slavery is the father of all poor laws which is why it's the single greatest source of slavery, just by other names and means. What you want regarding slavery is to make it irrelevant, not prohibition. What moralfags did was to waste everyone's time and money, money that could be used making slavery irrelevant. I don't need to explain why the american example is bad over the corpses of a scarred nation and 500,000 completely unnecessary corpses. The Ottomans, for their corruption managed to dismantle their slave trade peacefully and without major consequences. Had they have also enacted industrialization and abolished their legal monopolies, they could have achieved what the british did but they certainly avoided the horrors of american radicalism
>>18064678massive nigger cope
>>18064724Purely destructive violence is solely the domain of the Aryan. >When their (The Turkomans) women were found in the tents, the Franks did nothing evil to them except pierce their bellies with their lances.Brash, bold, daring, these men righteously slaughtered the accursed abominations against God without hesitation. The non-white Asiatic is incapable of such things.
>>18064153NTA but I cannot think of a single peasant rebellion in the history of the Ottoman Empire, whereas there are famous examples in German or Russian history
>>18064743>The great alevite chimpout of 1519-1610>Iberians discover south africa>Silk road dries up>Half of inner Anatolia is bankrupt>Taxes still as high>Alevites and Shiites act as 5th columns for the safavids>Uncounted dead>Yavuz enacts Total alevite turkoman death>Anatolia devastated >Kurds favoured by the porte overrun the countryside>Sunnis in Persia are exterminated in kind>Persia devastated >Mamelukes dead>the entire reign of Suleiman the magnificent >Still revoltingI assume it's probably the reason why the Ottoman core was the Aegean+Marmara regions despite places like Amasya
>>18064011Christianity has a huge problem with infighting and sectarianism. Islam also has a lot of infighting and sectarianism but not as extreme as christianity.Abrahamic religions tend to split easily for some reason.
>>18065760Everyone's god is nobody's god.
>>18065760Because the Catholic church was just the remnants of the Roman empire and held extreme wealth in all its aligned countries https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Qr_r-BbSs
>>18064006> implying the Ottoman "greatness" wasn't just leeching off of based Roman infrastructureSultanate of Rum was a literal successor state to Rome. They kept the tax system, the bureaucracy, and literally called themselves Caesar. They didn't build an empire, they moved into a decaying mansion and did some redecorating.> Byzantine Empire declined for centuries.Byzantines held the line for a thousand years after Rome fell.You are praising the vultures that picked the carcass.
>>18066438>Byzantines held the line for a thousand years after Rome fell.Cope. They lost everything despite sitting in one of the richest and most developed parts of the world.
>>18064011Yes but the Ottomans did the same. The only real answer here is that Anatolians are an inherently corrupt race.
>>18064014>Byzantines were femboysThe “femboy” in question: picrel
>>18066754Couldnt have been that ugly if the Turks were so obsessed with raping them.
>>18064006The Roman succession system was so terrible that only a hegemonic empire could come up with it; if a weaker state tried it'd inevitably be destroyed by its rivalsThe Arab Caliphs actually had a similar system of succession by civil war (if constrained within a single polygamous dynasty) but the Ottomans solved that through a system of institutionalized fratricide, and were thereby (after 1413) able to use their soldiers against other countries
>>18066822picrel hasbeen the grek dynamic since ancient times
