Originally Posted by lazyPro
the conquest of istanbul meant that the greedy europeans couldnt find a direct route to asia.
Of course, the Ottoman Empire was not driven by greed. And they did not intent to continue invading Europe as shown by their eventual defeat in... Vienna.
then the greedy europeans, as we well know, killed all of the indiginous peoples there.
The Eastern Roman Empire. A great colonial power.
thanks to that about 400000 africans were forced across the atlantic.
Across the atlantic to the... Easter Roman Empire?
no american president has apologized for slaver by the way.
American presidents. The continuation of the Eastern Roman Emperors.
then we can move on the raping of africa where these greedy europeans once again invaded these lands and took everything.
how much is owed to the africans and south americans?
By the Eastern Roman Empire?
Not that what you say is not true, in a naive way, but how are they related to the sacking of Konstantinoupoli is beyond me. And even if it did (
), it hardly stopped the events you narrate from happening, did it?
Look, the Ottomans wanted to build an Empire and expand. The Easter Roman Empire was already too weak and they were the only "obstacle" (though by the sacking of the city they weren't much of that either) for Europe. Konstantinoupoli was the jewell in the crown. It was going to happen at some point and that had nothing to do with the Byzantines being evil or Ottomans noble, and of course the opposite is not valid either. The Byzantines had their domination days (for a LONG time) in a difficult and turbulent region surrounded by enemies, but the end had come. Empires come and go. There is no reason to create neither a favorable, nor a negative image for a natural consequence of history.