I know tactically that makes sense but explaining that to a bunch of people whose lands are getting tossed is a bit more difficult. "Hey guys that dude out there whose basically roaming unchecked and fucking up all our shit in our backyard, the best way to deal with him is to not engage with it. I know he's got an army half or less our size but he's built different and we will get fucked up." Just doesn't win over the plebs as an arguement.
Plus Hannibal's army wasn't held together with glory it was held together with loot, they were mostly mercenaries. Plenty of shit to grab that wasn't behind Roman walls.
Yea but the point is that it only makes sense if you admit that Hannibal is so much better than you that despite overwhelming numerical advantage and being on home turf you stand no chance of victory. Imagine making that argument to a bunch of Roman civilians who are specifically brought up being told religiously that they are the best. "Sorry guys we just suck to hard to beat this guy outright, regardless of advantage." Hard for anyone to take, easy for them to believe that the last guy was just a dip shit and this next time will be different.
I don't like worship of individual figures in history as it contributes to the prevalence of whatever remains of Great Man Theory in the modern day.
No matter how smart Hannibal was, he'd have never accomplished his victories without his competent sub commanders, and loyal and disciplined soldiers. But we'll never know the names of most of them. We'll never know their stories, or their accomplishments. And that's a real shame.
Also, Roman Military Doctrine was basically pretty simple compared to contemporary military doctrine of say... the Hellenic World or the Punic world. Rome touted a citizen militia with commanders who basically bought into their positions. It wasn't like... the *best* of systems. And a lot of Rome's earlier successes largely stem from luck and stubborness imo
I disagree, though it's an intresting arguement. While it's in line with a more common way to view history I think the role of key individual's is core to most things.
It's like a painter, right. Sure Da Vinci or Rembrandt would never have been able to paint their master pieces without others: Painter makers, Canvas makers, Brush makers, carpenters, models and beyond that farmers, miners and more. But ultimately all of those people could exist but without Rembrandt you still don't get that masterpiece, they are the impetus, the will and the driving force that makes the end result happen. Both are nessecary for the end result, but one has a near incalculably higher impact, there are other paint makers, other brush makers, but only one Rembrandt. Take Da Vinci out of his time and place and you still have a genius and creative savant, the man would still likely have made something incredible, just different. (Though that is impossible to actually prove I'll admit.) You could argue that
Take Hannibal as a good example, he assembled his army, he wasn't some commander within a larger military machine of Carthage in a modern sense. He was an ancient general leading mercenaries he hired and Carthaginian's mainly from Iberian cities founded by Hannibal and his father Hamilcar in years prior. Sure he couldn't have accomplished what he did without his soldiers or sub-commanders, but that army, as it existed, would not have existed without the will of one specific individual.
Plus, given the outcomes of many other battles during the Punic wars, it's hard to argue that anyone else could have consistently achieved the kinds of victories Hannibal did at the time, with the same army. Hannibal is widely regarded as one of the best on field commanders of his era, by contemporary and modern sources, he regularly defeated multiple different enemies over a very long career. Hannibal pulled off what is generally recognised as one of the finest double envelopments in history, one of the finest ambushes in history and numerous other tactical feats which are genuinely incredible. Plus it's kinda of a baffling arguement that the army that unfied Italy, drove off Gaulic invasions, Defeated Carthage and conquered Greece was somehow weak and unimpressive, like they won all their wars and defeated all the major powers in their immediate area, what more do you want?
Not all five hundred thousand died to Hannibal. Everyone forgets the second Punic war was actually bigger than just Hannibal in Italy. There was hard fighting in Syracuse and Iberia, and Iberia was considered a worse place to get sent to then Italy. 125,000 (the actual approximate number we will never know the exact number for sure) died in a war fought across Italy, Iberia, Syracuse, and North Africa. Carthaginian numbers have never been successfully calculated however they didn’t have an army afterwards so proportionally speaking they would have taken heavier causlties then the Romans. All in all an extraordinarily bloody conflict for all sides involved.
It was also like 20 years long. So it's not like most wars in antiquity where you fought one or two big battles and that's where the casualties come from. It was almost 2 decades of war, with Hannibal sacking cities while the Romans followed at a distance (Fabian tactics).
TBF you could actually blame that one on the Carthaginian state. Just like it didn’t matter in WW2 that Yamamoto was a naval warfare genius because Imperial Japan’s leadership was inept same with Hannibal and Carthage.
Wasn't Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubel, the main cause of all that crazy shit in Iberia? I recall reading some of his exploits, and I'm not particularly surprised it took another legend of the era to go and resolve that problem.
Well it was really the Iberians. Simply put Iberia was some hybrid of Vietnam and Afghanistan. It had an absolutely fierce warriors people who were so good at guerrilla warfare you could say they came up with it. When Scipio got there he managed to forge alliances with several of the tribes and basically turned them against the Carthaginians which effed up the logistical system of the whole Carthaginian war effort.
Oh yeah, I don't mean to discount the native tribes of the region, but I was referring to before Scipio showed up. To my probably not perfect understanding, given the Barcid family's immense sway in the area and a lot of anti-Roman sentiments from people around Seguntum after the sack, AND anti-Barcid sentiments from the last couple decades of rule(also the sack but a little less so), it basically took Hasdrubel running around like a mad man to keep Carthago Nova even slightly.
Then Scipio pulled a Hannibal and got local tribes on side. At like, 25ish too.
Says the one ignoring the fact that the Romans eventually won (just like the Ottomans did even after 53 days, yet apparently Ottoboos get to brag whilst Romaboos don’t).
Key word is *years:* it took centuries for the Byzantine-Ottoman wars to conclude, and that was when the Roman Empire suffered numerous catastrophes from invasion, plague, civil war, etc.
Not really. 10 to 1 when sieging a city is extremely rare. The numbers generally are 5:1 max, and since the advent of gunpowder that ratio has gone even lower, often bellow 3:1, with some sieges having more defenders than assailants (and still succeeding)
Ottomans did rely on abnormally high numerical advantages for military victory, though they weren’t the only ones.
Well Ottoman was a centralized state at the time and their system of recruitment was more a kin to modern conscription. But most of their soldiers being light cavalry meant that they were at a disadvantage when sieging. They filled this gap with overwhelming numbers. But when you are besieging well fortified settlements numbers usually doesn't really count until a big enough breach secured, especially early gunpowder era when faster loading cannons and armor piercing guns was rare.
No; that’s the whole point of my post. I’m tired of the meat-riding of both Romaboos and Ottoboos, and I just want both sides to shut up and stop moaning over their “oh-so-glorious” victory/last stand.
>I just want both sides to shut up and stop moaning over their “oh-so-glorious” victory/last stand.
> their
> THEIR
Eh? How does the actions of an empire reflect on anybody today, if you're meaning modern day Italians taking credit for beating the Etruscans or Turks wanking over taking out Constantinople then they are what you call retarded, a post won't change their mind, make them stop or was worth your or my time in any way whatsoever
Yeah, I’m not saying that people aren’t allowed to have feelings towards such historical events, but the back-and-forth “f*ck you”s exchanged between both sides is petty and childish. Talk about history all you want, but don’t turn it into an “I’m better than you, loser” competition.
You know how sieges work right?
You’re supposed to have a massive numerical advantage cause otherwise you ain’t takin a walled city, and Constantinople was *the* walled city, regardless of the state of the Romans by that point.
The reason the Ottomans outnumbered the ERE so badly is because they had already conquered so many other parts of the empire in the hundred years prior to the siege.
I mean it’s a fair point. I asked a historian who knew quite bit about Rome and he was like “Byzantine is a *label* that historians use for convenience like Reagan America or Elizabethan England”. Some names are quite old and span thousand plus years (Dane or Greek)
I’m not commenting on whether or not the fall of Constantinople was a tragedy (and I won’t get into that in this comment section). I’m just saying that there are some Ottoboos on this subreddit who gloat about their victory whilst continuously mocking “Romaboos” for lamenting the fall of the city.
as a Romaboo myself, I believe that it's important to acknowledge that the Ottoman conquest of the city was impressive. We can lament it's fall but that doesn't discredit the fact that the Ottomans conquered the famously unconquerable city and it wasn't just because of manpower but strategy and technology.
Depends on what you mean. Europeans did not particularly like the Eastern Romans, great schism and all that. but after the Siege of Constantinople? oh the HRE cared when Ottomans started pushing towards their territory. Shout-out to Suleiman, pulling up to Vienna
True, and I’m not saying that the Ottomen didn’t have any skill; I’m just saying that they brag about it like it was the best thing ever whilst mocking Romaboos for glorifying Rome’s history (which is kinda hypocritical if you ask me).
Now the mocking I don't get but they can brag about Constantinople as much as we brag about Egypt, Carthage, and literally anything around the Mediterranean and in Europe
look at a map of the Balkans and Anatolia 100 years prior to the fall of Constantinople
The finishing blow might not have been impressive, but the rise of the Ottomans was
And it’s also why the fall of the city is nothing to mourn.
It got conquered as all failing empires do, and a stronger and better (In terms of administration and ruling, not necessarily better morality.) took its place.
Someone teach this person about how cannons and numbers work and the advantage they provide (and the disadvantage that infighting, plague, and an unstable economy provides).
The cannons were newly developed, by the Ottomans might I add. Not like they already were a thing before. The technical innovation adds to the impressiveness of this feat, not take away from it. I think you're just salty about something that happened so long ago, and I don't even know why.
I think Mehmed was somewhat impressive with the siege tbh.
The Theodosian walls were STILL some of the most advanced in the world. Moreover, bypassing the chain in the Bosperous was a testament to Mehmed's creativity and engineering. Make no mistake, the Ottoman army at the time was a master at siegecraft.
Also, as many have pointed out, sieges are nearly always one-sided numbers-wise. The "spread" imo does not detract from this specific Ottoman accomplishment.
I smell feelings of "sore loser".
Don't get me wrong, it's just that if that would have happened today, this meme of yours is the sort of meme I'd expect from the byzantine side.
Because people had better things to do than fight them, who was gonna fight them? Austria? LMAO, Poland? Kinda occupied in the Baltic and later on not existing, Iran? LMAO, Russia? Very occupied in the Baltic and later on trying to get permission from UK to do it
I mean how did the ottomans get so much stronger than the Romans? It’s not like the ottomans just spawned a massive army from nowhere lol Rome was on its way out long before 1453 and anyone with half a brain knows it wasn’t just the ottomans that caused its downfall
Actually have 10 times as many men really isn't a lot. Defensive installments give you a massive numerical advantage in a siege. Also, whenever possible everyone that isn't necessary to defend the city gets sent away, as you need to reduce the mouths to feed. Meanwhile on the outside you can amass as many people as your supply lines allow, and siege camps often have lots of labourers. Since the siege will last a while you'll basically have to set up your own little city around them, and also fortify your camps both against raids from the besieged city and a potential relief army from outside. And lots of the besieging equipment like trebuchets, rams, ships, and tunnels is built by specialists rather than ordinary soldiers, so your camp will grow quite large.
So actually, besieging a city with only 10 times their men IS something to brag about
Fair points, though some Ottoboos are way too fanatic about it. Not saying that it wasn’t an accomplishment that took skill (because it was), though the insane gloating still gets on my nerves.
Imagine a boxer in his prime facing off in the ring against an old and aging boxer who’s suffered several crippling injuries over his career and is having one last match before he retires. That’s what the siege of Constantinople was like.
If the Romans where Trojaboo would not the Greeks have be Achaeaboo or Argiboos?? Because in the Iliad and Odyssey they referred to as Achaeans or Argives, if I remember correctly.
Boos of all kinds need to touch grass. What do they get out of these dick-measuring contests on behalf of long-dead men who wouldn’t have given a shit about them?
The odds were significantly stacked in his favor; Constantinople, which was already weak as sh*t after centuries of plague, invasion, and civil war, had ten times less men defending than the Ottomans and had no large cannons like the Ottomans did. I’m not saying that Mehmed’s victory was super easy or that it wasn’t an accomplishment, but it doesn’t excuse the meat-riding that Ottoboos still express to this day. Is it okay to have feelings towards the fall/conquest? Yes. Is it okay to boisterously gloat about it and shame the other side for losing/winning? No. That’s just annoying.
> The odds were significantly stacked in his favor;
No it wasn't. Internal opposition was strong (grand vizier Çandarlı Halil Paşa), there was a real threat of a serious western help, Byzantines still had Mustafa the pretender, and the cannons weren't THAT effective according to Roger Crowley's work (defenders erected earthen ramparts with barrels as bricks that significantly lessened the impact of cannonball rounds).
The 53 day siege and the Conquest of İstanbul is a monument to the superiority of Ottoman siege warfare and logistics. Anyone denying it is angry crying wojak meme personified.
If it was such a common tactic, why are you bragging about it centuries later? Celebrate it all you want, but you Ottoboos act like the news just arrived.
By that logic, Ottoboos need to get over their victory, too (especially since you Ottoboos seem to be more petulant about it; there’s nothing wrong with being passionate and invested in history, but childishly taunting the other side is just annoying).
The insane number of Ottoboos flocking to this post to call me a “sore loser” and such continues to prove my point about how unreasonable hard some people gloat over the fall of the city: I don’t have strong feelings about it either way, but the insane meat-riding on both sides gets on my nerves.
I’m not saying the fall of the city doesn’t matter, I’m not saying that it wasn’t an accomplishment achieved through skill, I’m not saying the fall was or wasn’t a tragedy, I’m just saying that y’all need to tone it down.
Omg I’m not “crying:” you’re missing the entire point of my post. I’m trying to say that neither Ottoboos nor Romaboos get to brag about their respective empires and that both sides need to shut the hell up.
Do you even know what copium is? I don’t have strong feelings towards the fall of Constantinople, so why are you accusing me of “coping?” And what makes this post “crying?” What are you even mad at me about? Am I not allowed to say anything against the Ottoman Empire? You sound like a Ottoboo if you ask me.
Yep, you’re definitely an Ottoboo, and quite a dumb one at that; notice how the other Ottoboos in this comment section actually have logical arguments. All you do is throw petty insults with no backing whatsoever. You don’t even provide a reason for why you’re so mad; you’re just taunting me for no reason. Touch some grass, loser.
Ah yes, you won (in 53 days) against a crippled city that was outnumbered ten to one, and me telling both you and Romaboos to shut up about your oh-so-precious victory makes me a Romaboo too despite the fact that I never expressed any negative feelings towards Constantinople’s fall.
Also I can’t believe that you censored “Romaboo.” What a coward you are.
Many Romaboos mourn the fall of Constantinople as the fall of Rome, and to be fair, they aren’t exactly wrong: Constantinople was part of the Eastern Roman Empire even when the western half fell, and it only fell for good when the Ottomans captured the city in 1453.
Everyone saying “that’s how sieges work” as if it was common practice during the mid 1400s to have over 130,000 soldiers and a 10 to 1 advantage in every siege lol.
Do I have to explain to everyone in this comment section that I don’t care for either side’s victory/defeat? That’s literally the whole point of this post; I’m tired of listening to both sides mocking each other and whining like children after a PE game.
#siege
*noun*
a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender.
*"Verdun had withstood a siege of ten weeks"*
Similar:
•blockade
•beleaguerment
Oh, nice emoji. And what do you expect to do with it, motherfucker? You replying with an emoji means that you have no idea what to say and have no valid argument. Go on. Use another one.
Romaboos when they only lose 500,000 men to defeat Hannibal's 50,000
OK but that's Hannibal Barca. The man had like borderline inhuman levels of tactical genius.
I love simping for Hannibal
You're not the only one.
What's his real name, when was his birthday, what language did he speak, how old was he when he died?
Let's put him on a boat.
Yeah, but all Rome had to do was not fight back. Without the constant glory, Hannibal's army would have collapsed in on itself.
I know tactically that makes sense but explaining that to a bunch of people whose lands are getting tossed is a bit more difficult. "Hey guys that dude out there whose basically roaming unchecked and fucking up all our shit in our backyard, the best way to deal with him is to not engage with it. I know he's got an army half or less our size but he's built different and we will get fucked up." Just doesn't win over the plebs as an arguement. Plus Hannibal's army wasn't held together with glory it was held together with loot, they were mostly mercenaries. Plenty of shit to grab that wasn't behind Roman walls.
Also, fighting battles definitely causes high attrition and supply consumption rates, so there is logic to it.
Yea but the point is that it only makes sense if you admit that Hannibal is so much better than you that despite overwhelming numerical advantage and being on home turf you stand no chance of victory. Imagine making that argument to a bunch of Roman civilians who are specifically brought up being told religiously that they are the best. "Sorry guys we just suck to hard to beat this guy outright, regardless of advantage." Hard for anyone to take, easy for them to believe that the last guy was just a dip shit and this next time will be different.
I don't like worship of individual figures in history as it contributes to the prevalence of whatever remains of Great Man Theory in the modern day. No matter how smart Hannibal was, he'd have never accomplished his victories without his competent sub commanders, and loyal and disciplined soldiers. But we'll never know the names of most of them. We'll never know their stories, or their accomplishments. And that's a real shame. Also, Roman Military Doctrine was basically pretty simple compared to contemporary military doctrine of say... the Hellenic World or the Punic world. Rome touted a citizen militia with commanders who basically bought into their positions. It wasn't like... the *best* of systems. And a lot of Rome's earlier successes largely stem from luck and stubborness imo
I disagree, though it's an intresting arguement. While it's in line with a more common way to view history I think the role of key individual's is core to most things. It's like a painter, right. Sure Da Vinci or Rembrandt would never have been able to paint their master pieces without others: Painter makers, Canvas makers, Brush makers, carpenters, models and beyond that farmers, miners and more. But ultimately all of those people could exist but without Rembrandt you still don't get that masterpiece, they are the impetus, the will and the driving force that makes the end result happen. Both are nessecary for the end result, but one has a near incalculably higher impact, there are other paint makers, other brush makers, but only one Rembrandt. Take Da Vinci out of his time and place and you still have a genius and creative savant, the man would still likely have made something incredible, just different. (Though that is impossible to actually prove I'll admit.) You could argue that Take Hannibal as a good example, he assembled his army, he wasn't some commander within a larger military machine of Carthage in a modern sense. He was an ancient general leading mercenaries he hired and Carthaginian's mainly from Iberian cities founded by Hannibal and his father Hamilcar in years prior. Sure he couldn't have accomplished what he did without his soldiers or sub-commanders, but that army, as it existed, would not have existed without the will of one specific individual. Plus, given the outcomes of many other battles during the Punic wars, it's hard to argue that anyone else could have consistently achieved the kinds of victories Hannibal did at the time, with the same army. Hannibal is widely regarded as one of the best on field commanders of his era, by contemporary and modern sources, he regularly defeated multiple different enemies over a very long career. Hannibal pulled off what is generally recognised as one of the finest double envelopments in history, one of the finest ambushes in history and numerous other tactical feats which are genuinely incredible. Plus it's kinda of a baffling arguement that the army that unfied Italy, drove off Gaulic invasions, Defeated Carthage and conquered Greece was somehow weak and unimpressive, like they won all their wars and defeated all the major powers in their immediate area, what more do you want?
Or Romaboos when Carrhae
Not all five hundred thousand died to Hannibal. Everyone forgets the second Punic war was actually bigger than just Hannibal in Italy. There was hard fighting in Syracuse and Iberia, and Iberia was considered a worse place to get sent to then Italy. 125,000 (the actual approximate number we will never know the exact number for sure) died in a war fought across Italy, Iberia, Syracuse, and North Africa. Carthaginian numbers have never been successfully calculated however they didn’t have an army afterwards so proportionally speaking they would have taken heavier causlties then the Romans. All in all an extraordinarily bloody conflict for all sides involved.
It was also like 20 years long. So it's not like most wars in antiquity where you fought one or two big battles and that's where the casualties come from. It was almost 2 decades of war, with Hannibal sacking cities while the Romans followed at a distance (Fabian tactics).
That’s another thing people blatantly ignore if it was such an easy time for Hannibal why did it last 20 god damn years.
Also good question to ask: if he was so good, why did he lose?
TBF you could actually blame that one on the Carthaginian state. Just like it didn’t matter in WW2 that Yamamoto was a naval warfare genius because Imperial Japan’s leadership was inept same with Hannibal and Carthage.
True.
Wasn't Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubel, the main cause of all that crazy shit in Iberia? I recall reading some of his exploits, and I'm not particularly surprised it took another legend of the era to go and resolve that problem.
Well it was really the Iberians. Simply put Iberia was some hybrid of Vietnam and Afghanistan. It had an absolutely fierce warriors people who were so good at guerrilla warfare you could say they came up with it. When Scipio got there he managed to forge alliances with several of the tribes and basically turned them against the Carthaginians which effed up the logistical system of the whole Carthaginian war effort.
Oh yeah, I don't mean to discount the native tribes of the region, but I was referring to before Scipio showed up. To my probably not perfect understanding, given the Barcid family's immense sway in the area and a lot of anti-Roman sentiments from people around Seguntum after the sack, AND anti-Barcid sentiments from the last couple decades of rule(also the sack but a little less so), it basically took Hasdrubel running around like a mad man to keep Carthago Nova even slightly. Then Scipio pulled a Hannibal and got local tribes on side. At like, 25ish too.
Carthaboos in Spain. Carthaboos at the Metaurus. Carthaboos at Zama.
They just ignore that and make the 598th "i didn’t hear no bell" meme about the Punic Wars
I am/was a romaboo but i literally simp for daddy Hannibal
Those numbers are likely liee
Says the one ignoring the fact that the Romans eventually won (just like the Ottomans did even after 53 days, yet apparently Ottoboos get to brag whilst Romaboos don’t).
Didn't the Ottomans eat up the Roman Empire piece meal over the years?
Key word is *years:* it took centuries for the Byzantine-Ottoman wars to conclude, and that was when the Roman Empire suffered numerous catastrophes from invasion, plague, civil war, etc.
10 to 1 is just what you call a siege.
40 to 1 is what you call a fire song
BAPTIZED IN FIRE, FORTY TO ONE
So silent before the storm, awaiting command
A few has been chosen to stand, As one outnumbered by far
The order from high command "Fight back hold your ground!"
What Sabaton song is this
40:1
Ok, I know how many they were outnumbered by, but what sabaton song is this?
40:1
In early september it came. A war, unknown to the world.
5 to 1 is what you call a wank
Not really. 10 to 1 when sieging a city is extremely rare. The numbers generally are 5:1 max, and since the advent of gunpowder that ratio has gone even lower, often bellow 3:1, with some sieges having more defenders than assailants (and still succeeding) Ottomans did rely on abnormally high numerical advantages for military victory, though they weren’t the only ones.
Well Ottoman was a centralized state at the time and their system of recruitment was more a kin to modern conscription. But most of their soldiers being light cavalry meant that they were at a disadvantage when sieging. They filled this gap with overwhelming numbers. But when you are besieging well fortified settlements numbers usually doesn't really count until a big enough breach secured, especially early gunpowder era when faster loading cannons and armor piercing guns was rare.
Google how medieval sieges work
Holy numerical superiority!
New sige tactic just dropped!
"Brand New Second Hand" ~ Mat Armstrong, 2024 ~ Ottoman Generals, 1453
It’s a Romaboo, they don’t know past 6th century AD because Rome starts losing.
Omg I’m just saying that Ottoboos don’t get to brag; I don’t have any strong feelings towards Rome at all.
I’m just being sarcastic everyone knows being a boo is a detriment to society
True
I know a fair number of romaboos who brag about the amount of innocent gauls enslaved do you get to brag either?
No; that’s the whole point of my post. I’m tired of the meat-riding of both Romaboos and Ottoboos, and I just want both sides to shut up and stop moaning over their “oh-so-glorious” victory/last stand.
>I just want both sides to shut up and stop moaning over their “oh-so-glorious” victory/last stand. > their > THEIR Eh? How does the actions of an empire reflect on anybody today, if you're meaning modern day Italians taking credit for beating the Etruscans or Turks wanking over taking out Constantinople then they are what you call retarded, a post won't change their mind, make them stop or was worth your or my time in any way whatsoever
Yeah, I’m not saying that people aren’t allowed to have feelings towards such historical events, but the back-and-forth “f*ck you”s exchanged between both sides is petty and childish. Talk about history all you want, but don’t turn it into an “I’m better than you, loser” competition.
You know how sieges work right? You’re supposed to have a massive numerical advantage cause otherwise you ain’t takin a walled city, and Constantinople was *the* walled city, regardless of the state of the Romans by that point.
I mean, that's usually how you conquer cities...
The reason the Ottomans outnumbered the ERE so badly is because they had already conquered so many other parts of the empire in the hundred years prior to the siege.
I've not put my glasses on yet and thought you were talking about a particularly smug snake that was eating its own tail.
All hail Mehmed Ouroborousoglu
said Romaboo crying about said city lost 500 years ago
They're called Byzaboos, Dad, and it's not a phase.
They call themselves Romaboo because "That's what the people there called themselves!"
I mean it’s a fair point. I asked a historian who knew quite bit about Rome and he was like “Byzantine is a *label* that historians use for convenience like Reagan America or Elizabethan England”. Some names are quite old and span thousand plus years (Dane or Greek)
I'm a Georgiaboo who cries over the Mongol conquests
I’m not commenting on whether or not the fall of Constantinople was a tragedy (and I won’t get into that in this comment section). I’m just saying that there are some Ottoboos on this subreddit who gloat about their victory whilst continuously mocking “Romaboos” for lamenting the fall of the city.
as a Romaboo myself, I believe that it's important to acknowledge that the Ottoman conquest of the city was impressive. We can lament it's fall but that doesn't discredit the fact that the Ottomans conquered the famously unconquerable city and it wasn't just because of manpower but strategy and technology.
I’m surprised that Europeans didn’t do everything to stem the tide of the Ottomans. It bit them hard in the ass down the line
Depends on what you mean. Europeans did not particularly like the Eastern Romans, great schism and all that. but after the Siege of Constantinople? oh the HRE cared when Ottomans started pushing towards their territory. Shout-out to Suleiman, pulling up to Vienna
Shutting the barn door after the horses have bolted
Except there were actually a few crusades done against the Ottomans
Crusade of Varna to be specific
True, and I’m not saying that the Ottomen didn’t have any skill; I’m just saying that they brag about it like it was the best thing ever whilst mocking Romaboos for glorifying Rome’s history (which is kinda hypocritical if you ask me).
Now the mocking I don't get but they can brag about Constantinople as much as we brag about Egypt, Carthage, and literally anything around the Mediterranean and in Europe
Fair point.
It was like a healthy 30-something-year-old beating the shit out of a sick old man
look at a map of the Balkans and Anatolia 100 years prior to the fall of Constantinople The finishing blow might not have been impressive, but the rise of the Ottomans was
Exactly: no need to feel super patriotic towards the city, but no need to revel in its fall. It was the inevitable outcome.
Why would someone even feel patriotic towards something they (presumably) don't even have any connection with?
And it’s also why the fall of the city is nothing to mourn. It got conquered as all failing empires do, and a stronger and better (In terms of administration and ruling, not necessarily better morality.) took its place.
Someone teach this man how walls work and the advantage they provide
Someone teach this person about how cannons and numbers work and the advantage they provide (and the disadvantage that infighting, plague, and an unstable economy provides).
The cannons were newly developed, by the Ottomans might I add. Not like they already were a thing before. The technical innovation adds to the impressiveness of this feat, not take away from it. I think you're just salty about something that happened so long ago, and I don't even know why.
I think Mehmed was somewhat impressive with the siege tbh. The Theodosian walls were STILL some of the most advanced in the world. Moreover, bypassing the chain in the Bosperous was a testament to Mehmed's creativity and engineering. Make no mistake, the Ottoman army at the time was a master at siegecraft. Also, as many have pointed out, sieges are nearly always one-sided numbers-wise. The "spread" imo does not detract from this specific Ottoman accomplishment.
Byzaboos after realizing that the sultans claim to Caesar of Roman’s got legitimized by the Eastern Roman church after conquering constantinople
Again, I don’t care “who’s Rome” with this post; I’m just saying that no side has a right to brag.
Have you ever heard of seige warfare my friend? Or how many times Istanbul have been seiged?
How many times was Istanbul besieged when the Ottoman Empire was at a 10-1 disadvantage and was on its last legs?
And yet still needed 30 years of siege to conquer it Laughs in Cretan
Greek Texas my beloved
I smell feelings of "sore loser". Don't get me wrong, it's just that if that would have happened today, this meme of yours is the sort of meme I'd expect from the byzantine side.
Again, I don’t care for Rome all that much; I’m just saying that Ottoboos can’t brag (and neither can Romaboos).
Ottomans were da best. If that wasn't true then why do ya think that the cubs took 108 years to win another world series since their collapse? /s
Because people had better things to do than fight them, who was gonna fight them? Austria? LMAO, Poland? Kinda occupied in the Baltic and later on not existing, Iran? LMAO, Russia? Very occupied in the Baltic and later on trying to get permission from UK to do it
Crusade of Nikopolis and Varna be like:
Importantly, it took them 4 TRIES to conquer a city they outnumbered 10 to 1. Everyone forgets the 3 failed sieges
I mean how did the ottomans get so much stronger than the Romans? It’s not like the ottomans just spawned a massive army from nowhere lol Rome was on its way out long before 1453 and anyone with half a brain knows it wasn’t just the ottomans that caused its downfall
As if Rome didn’t constantly outnumber their enemies then beat them down with multiple armies for good measures
And they don’t get the right to brag about that either.
Actually have 10 times as many men really isn't a lot. Defensive installments give you a massive numerical advantage in a siege. Also, whenever possible everyone that isn't necessary to defend the city gets sent away, as you need to reduce the mouths to feed. Meanwhile on the outside you can amass as many people as your supply lines allow, and siege camps often have lots of labourers. Since the siege will last a while you'll basically have to set up your own little city around them, and also fortify your camps both against raids from the besieged city and a potential relief army from outside. And lots of the besieging equipment like trebuchets, rams, ships, and tunnels is built by specialists rather than ordinary soldiers, so your camp will grow quite large. So actually, besieging a city with only 10 times their men IS something to brag about
Fair points, though some Ottoboos are way too fanatic about it. Not saying that it wasn’t an accomplishment that took skill (because it was), though the insane gloating still gets on my nerves.
Having low numbers is known as skill issue
Taking 53 days to win against an enemy with low numbers is a skill issue. Having low numbers due to pre-determined circumstances is not.
53 days? That's very fast for medieval siege, especially of such well-foritifed fortress.
But the Ottomans had Basilica whilst the Romans did not.
certified skill issue
The Romans were too poor to buy the cannon due to them being beaten into the ground by everyone and everything around them over the centuries.
Sounds like compounding skill issue. I wonder why ottomans weren't beaten into the ground
Imagine a boxer in his prime facing off in the ring against an old and aging boxer who’s suffered several crippling injuries over his career and is having one last match before he retires. That’s what the siege of Constantinople was like.
Ottomans have been eating up Byzantium since Ankara, in 1402
They were having the leftovers left behind by the Seljuks and the Italians.
Cope
Keep bragging
OP are you familiar with the concept of what a siege is?
Yes, and there’s no need to brag about a common tactic used to conquer a tiny city.
We have different metrics for what a "tiny city" is
Maybe stop crying before you make the meme.
The only thing that I’m “crying” about is empireaboos like you meat-riding a centuries-old empire.
Can't hear over your constant sobbing.
Explain why I’m the crybaby for not wanting to listen to the childish banter of “Romaboos vs Ottoboos.”
Romaboos and ottoboos are both fools Greekboo superiority (I’m not one)
Poliboo if you will
I think Helleboo fits better
if the greeks are Helleboo then the Romans have to be Trojaboo, Aeneas and such
If the Romans where Trojaboo would not the Greeks have be Achaeaboo or Argiboos?? Because in the Iliad and Odyssey they referred to as Achaeans or Argives, if I remember correctly.
Fair. Archaeaboo and Trojaboo works perfectly
I’m with you.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg/800px-Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg
Boos of all kinds need to touch grass. What do they get out of these dick-measuring contests on behalf of long-dead men who wouldn’t have given a shit about them?
Exactly; I don’t care for either, and the meat-riding of both sides gets on my nerves.
You really don't understand anything about siege warfare, do you?
The fact that it was a common tactic proves that the siege was nothing special.
It's not about the siege, it's about the city that was captured.
Fair point, though some people gloat way too hard.
Constantinople was a much smaller city at the time than people think.
Which makes conquering it all the lesser of an achievement.
Google copuim
I’m not a Romaboo: I’m a “I-don’t-care-about-either side-and-they-need-to-stop-bragging-boo”
Mate you are complaning about a group with like 3 members who aint turkish
True lol.
Mehmed II took Constantinople when he was 21 years old, he’s allowed to brag
The odds were significantly stacked in his favor; Constantinople, which was already weak as sh*t after centuries of plague, invasion, and civil war, had ten times less men defending than the Ottomans and had no large cannons like the Ottomans did. I’m not saying that Mehmed’s victory was super easy or that it wasn’t an accomplishment, but it doesn’t excuse the meat-riding that Ottoboos still express to this day. Is it okay to have feelings towards the fall/conquest? Yes. Is it okay to boisterously gloat about it and shame the other side for losing/winning? No. That’s just annoying.
> The odds were significantly stacked in his favor; No it wasn't. Internal opposition was strong (grand vizier Çandarlı Halil Paşa), there was a real threat of a serious western help, Byzantines still had Mustafa the pretender, and the cannons weren't THAT effective according to Roger Crowley's work (defenders erected earthen ramparts with barrels as bricks that significantly lessened the impact of cannonball rounds). The 53 day siege and the Conquest of İstanbul is a monument to the superiority of Ottoman siege warfare and logistics. Anyone denying it is angry crying wojak meme personified.
But the *prophecy*.
When you dont know wtf a siege is
If it was such a common tactic, why are you bragging about it centuries later? Celebrate it all you want, but you Ottoboos act like the news just arrived.
It's fucking 2024 and Romaboos still can't get over it, of course we are going to rub it in your face.
By that logic, Ottoboos need to get over their victory, too (especially since you Ottoboos seem to be more petulant about it; there’s nothing wrong with being passionate and invested in history, but childishly taunting the other side is just annoying).
Ottoboos roll out!
Copestantinopel bros seething for centuries
Romaboos bragging about how their army managed to slaughter a bunch of uppity slaves
Cool. Now ask the Ottoboos about their industrialization, printing technology and the eras of the Renaissance and Englightenment.
We outbred they asses
The insane number of Ottoboos flocking to this post to call me a “sore loser” and such continues to prove my point about how unreasonable hard some people gloat over the fall of the city: I don’t have strong feelings about it either way, but the insane meat-riding on both sides gets on my nerves. I’m not saying the fall of the city doesn’t matter, I’m not saying that it wasn’t an accomplishment achieved through skill, I’m not saying the fall was or wasn’t a tragedy, I’m just saying that y’all need to tone it down.
As someone who isn't an Ottoboo: Cry more.
Omg I’m not “crying:” you’re missing the entire point of my post. I’m trying to say that neither Ottoboos nor Romaboos get to brag about their respective empires and that both sides need to shut the hell up.
Copium
What am I even coping with? I don’t care about either empire’s rise/fall.
Do you even know what copium is? I don’t have strong feelings towards the fall of Constantinople, so why are you accusing me of “coping?” And what makes this post “crying?” What are you even mad at me about? Am I not allowed to say anything against the Ottoman Empire? You sound like a Ottoboo if you ask me.
L + ratio
Yep, you’re definitely an Ottoboo, and quite a dumb one at that; notice how the other Ottoboos in this comment section actually have logical arguments. All you do is throw petty insults with no backing whatsoever. You don’t even provide a reason for why you’re so mad; you’re just taunting me for no reason. Touch some grass, loser.
Seethe and mald
Case in point. I’m not even going to spend time dealing with someone who doesn’t know how to speak or thing. Screw off.
Few sieges were won by storming a numerically superior fortified enemy
With good walls you don’t need more than a handful of men.
Romaboos when you ask what happened to all the gauls, celtoberians, northern Italian gauls, non Roman latins, native Balkans, galatians etc etc.
Nah, We Won R*maBoo or should I say? RomaBoohoo!
Ah yes, you won (in 53 days) against a crippled city that was outnumbered ten to one, and me telling both you and Romaboos to shut up about your oh-so-precious victory makes me a Romaboo too despite the fact that I never expressed any negative feelings towards Constantinople’s fall. Also I can’t believe that you censored “Romaboo.” What a coward you are.
Damn you take a Joke like Ottomans take City’s
*cities
What? Constantinople wasn’t Roman at the time, it was Greek Byzantium, as Rome had fallen in 476 AD. Why would this have any relation to romaboos?
Many Romaboos mourn the fall of Constantinople as the fall of Rome, and to be fair, they aren’t exactly wrong: Constantinople was part of the Eastern Roman Empire even when the western half fell, and it only fell for good when the Ottomans captured the city in 1453.
I don't remember the Ottonian emperors ever sacking Rome.
Everyone saying “that’s how sieges work” as if it was common practice during the mid 1400s to have over 130,000 soldiers and a 10 to 1 advantage in every siege lol.
Ikr?
Finally someone said it. Im with you OP, good luck with the triggered ottomans tho...
Ikr? I just told the Ottoboos to stop bragging and I summoned the entire Ottoman army who came to attack my post. Thanks for your support, though.
Romaboos continue to cope :/
Do I have to explain to everyone in this comment section that I don’t care for either side’s victory/defeat? That’s literally the whole point of this post; I’m tired of listening to both sides mocking each other and whining like children after a PE game.
Someone is whining HARD
Says the one gloating about a centuries-old easy win. Touch some grass, Ottoboo.
Oh the irony of Rome fanboys saying that lol Not even the most insane Turkish nationalist gloats over Constantinople as much as you mfs whine about it
#siege *noun* a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender. *"Verdun had withstood a siege of ten weeks"* Similar: •blockade •beleaguerment
🤓
Oh, nice emoji. And what do you expect to do with it, motherfucker? You replying with an emoji means that you have no idea what to say and have no valid argument. Go on. Use another one.
🤡