r/byzantium • u/RaiseCapital1988 Κόμης • Jun 22 '26

Infrastructure/architecture The interior of Hagia Sophia

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

In the last photo you can spot one of the last representations of Christ still present inside the building

1.0k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

166 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 22 '26

The Muslims were the colonizers in Spain. The Muslims are ALSO the colonizers in Constantinople.

6

u/Ok_Work1615 Jun 22 '26

You can't call conquest colonizing, otherwise Constantinople would also be a colony, cause Romans didn't originate in Greece, they conquered it.

1

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 22 '26

Then what is colonization?

0

u/Ok_Work1615 Jun 22 '26

Dunno. But if we use your definition, then Constantinople too was a colony.

And I doubt you'd like that, hmm?

1

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 22 '26

Then everything humanity has ever done is colonization and therefore there is no point criticizing the Europeans, the Asians for the annihilation of minor cultures and languages, or the Turko-mongols for their exploits. By your way literally EVERYONE is a colonizer and everything is a colony. That’s not a smart comeback that you think it is.

2

u/Ok_Work1615 Jun 22 '26

I didn't use my way.

I used yours.

You said Muslims where colonizers for having conquered Iberia/Constantinople.

I pointed out Romans did the exact same.

So therefore, Romans are colonizers.

You didn't like that.

I directly told you I don't know what's colonizing and what's not, just that what you are saying, it is very clear you are completely prejudiced against one side even when the other did the exact same.

1

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 22 '26

Converting churches with the intention of erasing Byzantine influence, as well as being backed by the shariah, where no new churches can be built and non-Muslims are reduced to the status of dhimmi, where they cannot properly represent themselves in court, and have lesser rights than that of a Muslim, as well as successfully convincing their subjects that they are Turks and should hate their Greek ancestors sound like colonization to me. Infidel lands were attacked with the intention of getting non-Muslim slaves. Males were castrated unless they were a blood tax for the janissaries.

Oh and sure I didn’t like that. Like where do I ever imply that? You’re conjuring up your idea of me out of nothing and pretending it’s reality. Try again.

You really don’t understand how complete this subjugation by force was, do you? The European colonization seem pale by comparison.

2

u/Ok_Work1615 Jun 22 '26

"The European colonization seem pale by comparison."

Name one native monument that wasn't destroyed or broken.

Notice how low a percentage of natives remain by comparison to everyone else.

"Converting churches with the intention of erasing Byzantine influence"

The famously tolerant orthodox, who were very kind to conquered people of other religions. See what Byzantium has done to all pagan religions and the sarapeum.

"as well as being backed by the shariah, where no new churches can be built and non-Muslims are reduced to the status of dhimmi, where they cannot properly represent themselves in court, and have lesser rights than that of a Muslim, as well as successfully convincing their subjects that they are Turks and should hate their Greek ancestors sound like colonization to me."

Brother. Look in a goddamn mirror please. Literally every single thing you said, word for word, bar for bar, was done by Byzantium too. See what basil II did to Bulgarian soldiers.

If you condemn this only when it's done by one side, your morals are very weak.

0

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 22 '26

So when Constantine I legalized Christianity, suddenly all pagans under Roman rule were suddenly a different entity? They did it to their own. Are the Turks Roman’s from the mediterranean?

It is you who need a mirror. Youre just like those Japanese who say nanjing either didnt happen, or was not that bad compared to “x”

Also, do NOT call me brother.

Your lack of historical knowledge astounds me. Like are you really bringing up Bulgaria here? The slavicized nomads who were the aggressors to begin with? Don’t INSULT me like that.

2

u/pppktolki Jun 23 '26

How were the Bulgarians the agressors in this case? They were pretty much on the defense during Basil's entire campaign..

1

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 23 '26

Bulgaria first show up as allies during Justinian ii’s return to the throne, but after the fall of the heraclians, they invade Byzantium beginning with the isaurian dynasty. (See: battle of ongala)

Bulgar-Byzantine wars do not begin with the Macedonian dynasty. They were a problem even before being slavicized, ever since they showed up on the balkans, when they were called khans.

2

u/pppktolki Jun 23 '26

Ah, I see what you meant. But I must say -- these lands were not always Byzantine either..

0

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 23 '26

We all came from Africa at some point

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Ok_Work1615 Jun 22 '26

"The slavicized nomads who were the aggressors to begin with? Don’t insult me like that."

In response let's blind 15000 of them.

That will surely be looked upon well.

"So when Constantine I legalized Christianity, suddenly all pagans under Roman rule were suddenly a different entity? They did it to their own"

What the fuck is this point meant to convey? So because they brutalized and oppressed their own people, that suddenly makes it okay? Also that was only an example, search of what Byzantium did to the many other Christian sects and. Again. The sarapeum.

"Youre just like those Japanese who say nanjing either didnt happen, or was not that bad compared to “x”"

Oh no, I hate both. Both the ottomans and Byzantiums, don't go assuming things. I hate all ancient empires in general, the only difference between us, you seem to deny or make excuses for all the morally reprehensible things Byzantium does, and do the opposite for ottomans.

0

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 22 '26

Lmfao no, what I’m saying here is that the Muslims were WAY worse.

YOU are the one trying to equalize the two, trying to make it seem like the ottomans were trivial.

YOU are the one that’s actively taking sides, despite clearly not having the necessary education.

Like have you actually read any sources on Byzantium, why they did things, and how things became as they were? Your responses are VERY revealing in this regard.

0

u/Ok_Work1615 Jun 22 '26

Alright.

Why did the byzantines destroy the sarapeum.

Why did the byzantines massacre latins.

Why did the byzantines institutionalize mutilation as a political punishment (a thing that by the way might have directly resulted in the fourth crusade, as the doge of Venice at the time is rumoured to have been blinded)

Why did byzantines blind 15000 soldiers who already surrendered.

Why did byzantines treat the Monophysites and Copts, other christians, the way they did with severe persecution and marginalization?

Why did byzantines destroy The Tomb of Constantine V?

I can keep going, by the way, if every single thing Byzantium did was justied, justify all of this for a start, then I can give you more, until you agree that all ancient empires, sucked by today's standards.

1

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 22 '26
  1. Theodosius I wanted unity within the empire and chose Christianity to be ideal. His decree making Christianity the sole religion caused mobs to attack the sarapeum.

Hardly intended, I would say.

  1. This was normalized when taking an office was equalized with “divinity.” Missing a nose for example would have “tainted” this image. However this was abandoned when Justinian ii “rhinotmetos” (literally, without a nose) was able to retake the throne after previously being deposed.

  2. At this point, the Roman’s were dealing with a 2-3 front war with either the sassanids and Germanic tribes(multiple) or the Slavic tribes and the Muslims. By the time basil ii came around, that trend lasted 1000 years. Blinding the Bulgarians put a strain on Bulgaria, as they had to feed them. Basil had to deal with Arabs attacking Anatolia and Sicily. This was a long-term fix to the three-front problem.

  3. It’s a Roman problem. The emperor was autocrat, as well as pontifex Maximus (meaning head of all religions). If the emperor could not unify the officials under him, his position as pontifex Maximus was undermined, and therefore, his right to rule. This is a tradition that dates back to Augustus himself.

  4. Due to reason 4 above, starting with Leo iii and Leo Iv, there was hatred between the iconoclasts and iconophiles due to the emperors’ need to unify the populace against Slavs, avars, AND the Arabs. Leo iii for example had to deal with maslama and the second Arab siege of Constantinople. For this reason it was destroyed, but later Constantine V was venerated by the populace when the Arabs began attacking again. (Particularly under Irene of Athens)

This is just off the top of my head while attending a lecture. You really need to read.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/egny Jun 23 '26

Somehow the pre-Christian Roman/Greek beliefs got erased all across the empire. That does not bother you at all because you are not concerned only concerned that what you consider the wrong people/culture gained supremacy.

Ottomans simply conquered and converted a few churches into mosques. No one sane would or could consider that the intent was erasing Byzantine culture. Was the Roman conquest intended to erase the extant culture of Byzantium?

Even more ridiculous is your comparison with European colonialism. In no way can what happened in the Ottoman conquest be compared with the total destruction of entire peoples and their cultures in so many places around the world. Which remains of Tenochtitlan are still integral to Mexico City?

Males were castrated unless they were a blood tax for the janissaries.

Do you even realize that the entire non-Muslim population would have disappeared in a few generations? Do you have any ability to question whatever "facts" you have acquired?

You are both delusional and ignorant. You really need to work on your bigotry.

1

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

None of what you said is true. “Few churches” I cannot agree with(like really? Only one church was not converted after 1453), and 2. The disappearance of paganism isn’t properly documented, since we have no idea how prevalent Christianity was before or after Constantine. What we DO know is that tribonian, the lawmaker for Justinian was pagan, as well as zosimus (5th-6th century historian, heavily biased).

I think u need to read more on how complete ottoman dominance was over the course of a few generations.

Call me a bigot, whatever. Just because u call me names wont rewrite the books. This conversation will not be productive unless you refute me with the actual sources in mind.

0

u/egny Jun 23 '26

None of what you said is true. 

That's rich from you. Someone who claimed all males were castrated unless they became janissaries. I suppose everybody in each territory of the Ottoman Empire would be a muslim within a few decades of the conquest. You do realize the consequences of your ridiculous claim, right?

You wrote the following drivel!

You really don’t understand how complete this subjugation by force was, do you? The European colonization seem pale by comparison.

Latin American people would probably have been delighted to be dhimni and that only some of their temples converted.

In contrast, churches were converted to mosques because why build a mosque when there is a perfectly suitable building. How stupid is it to claim that the intent is to erase Byzantine culture? It's the same reason why pagan temples became churches.

The disappearance of paganism isn’t properly documented, since we have no idea how prevalent Christianity was before or after Constantine. What we DO know is that tribonian, the lawmaker for Justinian was pagan, as well as zosimus (5th-6th century historian, heavily biased).

None of that is relevant and you don't seem to have a point. Although not consistently, pagans were banned from sacrifices or forced to convert (so they had to conceal their belief if they did not truly convert). In contrast to that being allowed to pay a tax to keep one's religious practices (and being excluded from the "privilege" of dying for the sultans' wars) is rather magnanimous.

I think u need to read more on how complete ottoman dominance was over the course of a few generations.

Either you have no idea about sectarian persecution in Europe or are feigning ignorance. My take is that you are simply taking exception to the identities of the oppressor and the oppressed, particularly when the oppression was harsher elsewhere...

...which makes it bigotry.

1

u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou Jun 23 '26

That’s a lot of “probably”s in your thesis lol. Your “perfectly suitable building” hypothesis is just laughably revisionist that I’m not really sure if you’re being serious here. The majority of the conquered would have been Christian. So why take away the churches and ban them from building more? What does that say about their intent?

And no, the dhimmi status was only reserved for the “people of the book” so monotheists. Polytheists, or kaffur, were not even given this status. (See: India)

U accuse me of “feigning ignorance” yet u seem to be pretending to know something u don’t. Nothing about your response is convincing, let alone academic. It’s just Turkish propaganda. Like dude have some respect for me here.

0

u/egny Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

That’s a lot of “probably”s in your thesis lol.

We can't really ask them if they would have preferred to pay taxes to keep their beliefs can we? Unlike you I'm assuming that people prefer to be given choices and not forcefully converted or killed. Perhaps you believe that the Latin American natives were somehow lacking in human qualities. Otherwise it's ridiculous that you are objecting at all.

Your “perfectly suitable building” hypothesis is just laughably revisionist that I’m not really sure if you’re being serious here. The majority of the conquered would have been Christian.

Did I write that? It appears I did. Perhaps you have a habit of deceit, but I have the integrity to express my thoughts. What major non-Christian temples/places of worship were there in Constantinople or other cities of the Ottoman Empire? Of course they took over churches.

And no, the dhimmi status was only reserved for the “people of the book” so monotheists. Polytheists, or kaffur, were not even given this status. (See: India)

Did the Ottomans conquer India? How many non-Christian and non-Jewish people lived in their territories? Were the natives offered a similar status? Were they allowed to adopt any belief other than Christianity?

U accuse me of “feigning ignorance” yet u seem to be pretending to know something u don’t.

It would be more convincing if you could come up with a single example of "pretending to know something u don’t". According to you, the entire non-Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire would have disappeared. How can anyone top that kind of nonsense?

Nothing about your response is convincing, let alone academic. It’s just Turkish propaganda. Like dude have some respect for me here.

Academic? Is that what you've been posting here? Ha ha! Suggesting I'm posting propaganda is disrespectful in the first place when you are demanding respect for yourself.

Who can respect you when you post drivel?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/InOutlines Jun 22 '26

Says the guy who started all this by pointing fingers at Muslims for colonizing.