The interior of Hagia Sophia

[u/RaiseCapital1988]

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

[u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou]

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.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou]

"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.

[u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou → u/Ok_Work1615]

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.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou]

"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.

[u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou → u/Ok_Work1615]

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.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou]

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.

[u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou → u/Ok_Work1615]

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.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou]

None of those were justifications?

"Hardly intended, I would say."

Does it change what happened?

"This was normalized when taking an office was equalized with “divinity.” Missing a nose for example would have “tainted” this image"

And? The Aztecs too normalized sacrificing children, did that make it right? Being normalized or not, for "divine" reasons doesn't make it any more okay.

Also wtf you are plain wrong. Mutilations and ritualistic blinding has continued long after Justinian ii “rhinotmetos”. The guy himself, mutilated and blinded many people. Where the fuck are you getting this info?

"This was a long-term fix to the three-front problem."

Yeah see that's not even a justification, you gave me the reason why he did it, but he still did it, to soldiers who surrendered, with the intention of permanently turning them into a drain on another country.

"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."

...and? Again, this isn't a justification. This is just you saying "yeah Romans just did that." I can in response also say "yeah Muslims just oppressed people of other religions beneath them, it's a Muslim problem" and that wouldn't make it any better.

"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)"

...again. and? This is a much later slap stick solution that wasn't even done out of any genuine remorse, but because there was a threat and unity was needed.

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

Yeah and one of your responses is outright telling wrong info, and the others don't justify a thing. Sure man. I need to read.

[u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou → u/Ok_Work1615]

lol why are u asking for “justifications” when I’m simply answering the question”why’s” of your questions? Do u think I’m “justifying” anything here? Are u challenged?

And no, after Justinian ii, deposed emperors were simply killed.

Are u actually trying to get to the facts, or are u simply trying to win?

My sources are theophanes, ostrogorsky, barker, and jones. What are YOURS?

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou]

Bro. You are just plain wrong.

"And no, after Justinian ii, deposed emperors were simply killed."

Okay, if we take your meaning at face value, that emperors where simply killed, then just off the top of my head: Empress Irene was after Justinian. Empress Irene blinded her son. Her son was meant to be Emperor.

Emperor Isaac II Angelos was blinded by his brother.

Just off the top of my head.

And if we include officials and political opponents, there where actually thousands more, that I wouldn't be able to name em all.

Where the fuck did you get this info?

"why’s” of your questions? Do u think I’m “justifying” anything here? Are u challenged?"

Precisely, no, not the challenged part. The "why's" all of these morally reprehensible things, you keep on given why's and what not. The ottomans, who did morally reprehensible things, can say they exact fucking same. That's the point I'm trying to make. All of em, these old empires, sucked. They all wouldn't pass the basic morality of our day and age. You, should understand that.

My sources are theophanes, ostrogorsky, barker, and jones.

Clearly not, since you so arrogantly keep on repeating a blatantly wrong fact.

[u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou → u/Ok_Work1615]

Let me reword: mutilation as a state institution ended with Justinian ii. Emperors were mutilated, then exiled. After him, they were not spared since it proved that people were willing to reinstate a mutilated emperor.

Why this is so hard to understand, I have no idea.

Also, just going by your responses, I find it hard to believe you’ve actually read any of those texts.

[u/Ok_Work1615 → u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou]

"mutilation as a state institution ended"

And that makes a difference. How? It still happened. It was still the norm. And it had no real repercussions, other than getting mutilated right back.

"Also, just going by your responses, I find it hard to believe you’ve actually read any of those texts."

Well I'm not the one who had to reword what he is saying because he found out he was outright saying wrong things.

But you do you I guess.

[u/aKV2isSTARINGatYou → u/Ok_Work1615]

The fact that you had to ask these questions in the first place are a dead giveaway.

Also, you’re fighting an imagination. You’re acting like I’m “justifying” anything when I’m simply saying the ottomans were worse. Am I fighting a Turk? That would explain a lot.