Why does /his/ always go on about the fall of constantinople?

>>1777585
You need to stop posting

I don't know, perhaps something to do with greek scholars fleeing the steppeniggers and moving to the richest cities in Europe that were located in Italy and started to invest in the arts and sciences and the fact that muslims now controlled trade with the East and made it very desirable to find a sea route to India

>>1777593
any sources on the topic?

>>1777586
That is his third trip. Mods are quite active on /his/

>>1777585
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>1777593
>I don't know, perhaps something to do with greek scholars fleeing the steppeniggers and moving to the richest cities in Europe that were located in Italy and started to invest in the arts and sciences
this is exaggerated and actually was almost irrelevant, greek scholars and artist didn't contribute much actually(as they were simply shit)

Roman Empire was a rotting corpse not only as a state but also culturally and scientifically, it's not about it's fall itself but about
>that muslims now controlled trade with the East and made it very desirable to find a sea route to India
This. Turks now controlled the most important trade route, and except for jews and other Venetians no one in Europe really had a good deal with them.

>ends the Byzantine empire
>destroys the former border between Christendom and Islam
>gives one of the biggest cities in the world to the Ottomans
>the Ottomans now have a solid base for all operations to the north, allowing war in the balkans
>later, it remains the center of Turkey
>Latin/Greek/Byzantine scholars flee to Italy and kickstart the Renaissance
>European Christian Access to the middle east and India becomes more difficult, promoting the search for alternate trade routes, pushing a whole new era of exploration

And so on and so forth.

>>1777720
>>ends the Byzantine empire
The Roman Empire was a rotting, fragmentated corpse anyway. It already happened in 1204, not that much of a deal.
>>destroys the former border between Christendom and Islam
I don't really get that sentence? The border wasn't destroyed, it was pushed north.
>>gives one of the biggest cities in the world to the Ottomans
In 1453 Constantinople wasn't one of the biggest cities in the world. It had barely ~50,000 people, the city was basically villages here and there with wilderness in the middle
>>the Ottomans now have a solid base for all operations to the north, allowing war in the balkans
Can you stop please spewing made up shit? In 1453 most of Balkans were already conquered by the Ottomans. They already had more than a "solid base" there. You are partly right though, as Constantinople made the empire actually continuous.
>>later, it remains the center of Turkey
The main point about Fall of Constantinople is that the Turks got arguably the best possible location for an urban centre in Europe. It's geographic position is so good that under a relatively stable government it's always either simply the largest city in Europe(it is now) or one of the largest and most prosperous.
>>Latin/Greek/Byzantine scholars flee to Italy and kickstart the Renaissance
Tell me one of these scholars and their actual contributions.
>>European Christian Access to the middle east and India becomes more difficult, promoting the search for alternate trade routes, pushing a whole new era of exploration
That one is true tho.

It was the final collapse of a state that had existed continuously in some way ever since 753 BC. That's pretty important.

>>1777683
>>1777847
>this is exaggerated and actually was almost irrelevant, greek scholars and artist didn't contribute much actually(as they were simply shit)

Some people definitely exaggerate the effect of the Greek scholars/artists on the Renaissance, but you can't deny that they had a substantial effect nonetheless. From exposing Western scholars to many Ancient Greek texts, to introducing Greek artistic techniques to Italian artists, Greek influence is simply everywhere in the early Renaissance.

>Tell me one of these scholars and their actual contributions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissance
>inb4 wikipedia not credible source
Check the sources at the bottom. Not all of them are credible, but there's definitely a couple credible books from respectable historians there.

>>1777862
> That's pretty important.
Some states existed longer, but nobody cares about they collapse.

>>1777970
>From exposing Western scholars to many Ancient Greek texts
Muh Greece muh philosophers...

Bunch of non scientific bullshit. Ancient Greece wasn't more valuable or advanced than fucking Middle Ages.

>>1777578
The biggest impact is that it triggered age of exploration

>>1777970
What's exaggerated is the Byzantine influence on these events. Greek was of course important but most Classical works in Greek came from Southern Italy and France, not Byzantine refugees, and they served mostly as tutors for rich nobles who wanted to learn Greek to seem cultured as most of the important works had already been translated into Latin by then.

>>1777862
>that's pretty important
Why?

>>1777593
>>1777683
>This. Turks now controlled the most important trade route, and except for jews and other Venetians no one in Europe really had a good deal with them.

The Italians had a monopoly on the Eastern Mediterranean already, and the Turks coming in didn't change any of that. The reason the Spanish and Portuguese were sailing for new lands and trade routes was to circumvent the Italian monopoly on trade rights with Muslim Asian and African powers.

>>1777578
It's just a meme carried over from /int/ Byzaboos and LARPers.

>>1778082
that's what I meant...

>>1778100
no I still think it's an event of truly historic, universal significance

we are taught about it on history classes even if my country didn't have any ties with the Byzantines (I'm from Poland)

>>1778146
what did they tell you about it?
why is it significant?

>>1778154
>>1778146
>we are taught about it on history classes even if my country didn't have any ties with the Byzantines (I'm from Poland)

Like I said, LARPers. It ties into the idea of Fortress Christendom for reactionaries and traditionalists.

>>1777578

Because
>muhhh muslimsss

>>1778146
>that's what I meant...
What you meant was that the Muslims "now" controlled something and parceled the best parts out to Italian merchants with the fall of Constantinople, but that's wrong. Trade with Asia was always controlled by them, even with the Byzantines, and the Ottoman conquest of the city changed nothing.

>>1777578
You made this just to bait Valim, didn't you?

>>1778154
>what did they tell you about it?
Honestly historical education in Poland in my opinion sucks ass, it focuses too much on national history, and if there is any universal history it's all eurocentric, like we're told about the Persians only in context of Greek-Persian wars.

So honestly about the late Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire/Kingdom of the Greeks/memes only 2 things are mentioned: Justinian and the fall of Constantinople.

We're told it's significant mainly because it forced Europeans to seek for a sea trade route to India. And when I think about it now, Poland and the Ottomans in later period clashed oftenly so it may be kind of an introduction of the Turks in our education aswell but actually Mehmed II isn't even mentioned aswell.

In overall Polish basic history education sucks ass, especially for people legitly interested in history. I want to learn about relevant things, new global trends emerging not being indoctrinated into gloryfing another doomed to fail incursion of the Polish "heroes" which always suprisingly ended in devastating defeats.

>>1778216
i made it cause i didn't understand. baiting is a bonus.

>>1778169
>>1778169
>It ties into the idea of Fortress Christendom
>implying any Poles ever think of anything except for Poland as a "Fortress of Christendom"
I've never heard any Pole talking of the Byzantines like that, but I've obviously heard Anglo historians doing that and I think that's universal and I understand it. But we completely alienate ourselves from the Orthodox Christianity because we are butthurt about Russians also it's just we are fanatic Catholics.

>>1778224

As a Pole, what do you think about the often perpetuated "Poland dindu nuffin wrong, 1920 was defensive war" meme?

>>1778192
Yes of course Venetians jews possessed Constantinople as their own, completely controlled all the trade, took 100% of the benefit and it didn't matter at all who actually owned Constantinople rite?

Apart of that, the Ottomans simply rebuilt Constantinople and brought it back to former glory. Trade flourishes in the times of stability and the Byzantines were consistently failing to ... basically do anything at all. The Ottomans revived the core of Eastern Europe(also it's not even considered Europe anymore because of them).

>>1777994
>Some states existed longer
How about you list them then?

>>1777578
I heard the Islamic Prophet predicted the fall of Constantinople to the Islamic army wayy early, that's pretty fascinating to the people I guess.

>>1777578
>what impact did it have on the world?
Did you never have a 100-level history class in college or something

File: 71444963.jpg (12KB, 203x209px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 203x209px

>>1778154
>>1778169
>hurr durr why is the end of Roman legacy significant
You disappoint me, /his/

>>1778271
>"""""crusaders""""

>>1778282
Gojoseon ( 2333 BC ~ 108 BC )
Ethiopia ( 980 BC ~ 1936 CE)
Van Lang ( 2524 BC ~ 258 BC)
Japan ( 600 BC ~ 2016 CE )

>>1778333
Other than Japan and maybe Ethiopia, the others were hardly significant compared the (Eastern) Roman Empire

File: Madrassa and Mausoleum of Barquq 4.jpg (1006KB, 1700x1726px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 1700x1726px

>>1777593
>>1777683
>>1777720
>>1777847
>>1778016
>>1778279
Am I missing something here? The Mediterranean, and hence Europe, was connected to the Indian Ocean through Egypt, which was ruled by the Mamelukes and not taken by the Ottomans until well after the Portuguese rounded Africa. I don't see how the conquest of Constantinople has much to do with this.

>>1778265
I think that generally Poland dindu naffin if you look at it's history as a whole. It's laughable that foreigners bring things like the annexation of 800km2 area which ended in death of literally 0(zero) people as an example of a "terrible Polish crime", Russians make up even more ridiculous examples but nevermind.

But when it comes to 1920 and generally Interbellum Poland was hardly all "dindu naffin" and "innocent martyr".

It's actually a complex things and I don't really know how to explain it properly without getting too deep but I'll try.

This is generally what we are told on history lessons(I will really simplify though): finally independence after 123 years of partitions so it's kind of great time, challenging state building, multicultural society, bad Soviets invaded us we defeated them and somehow we "saved Europe" once again, bad Lithuanians, bad Czechs, BAD RUSSIANS, bad Germans, good Ukrainians(we were allied with Petlura against the Bolsheviks), good Belarussians but they were lacking political elites necessary to create some proper cooperation between our countries, generally Poland dindu naffin, it was a rapidly developing country with outstanding achievements, our military actions were justified, in the end we were "betrayed" by the West and defeated 1v2. But of course, certain people and their decisions are sometimes heavily critcized.

My personal view on that period of Polish history is that Poland in (especially late) the Interbellum period attempted to become another "predator" with some imperialistic tendencies. I would never compare it to the Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia but still. We expanded or attempted to do so in every direction.

If you know Polish history, it's hard to actually not justify atleast some of those though. PLC was large and ours, we wanted to have atleast some of it's territory back and after Versaille Treaty ending the WW1 we were left without some of our prominent urban cores with Polish majority.

File: peep.jpg (20KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 250x241px

>>1778271
>Pagan roman temples in Byzantium in 1204
/pol/ here. I thought this was supposed to be the history board?

>>1778333
>Gojoseon ( 2333 BC ~ 108 BC )
Mythology. It was hardly much older than the 7th century BC.

>Ethiopia ( 980 BC ~ 1936 CE)
The Ethiopian state was formed around the 1st century AD and collapsed several times in its history after that.

>Van Lang ( 2524 BC ~ 258 BC)
More mythology. States didn't emerge in Vietnam until around the mid-1st millennium BC with the Dong Son culture.

>Japan ( 600 BC ~ 2016 CE )
The Yamato state didn't form until after 250 AD, and probably closer to 400 AD. Like Ethiopia, it also collapsed many times in its history.

Of course, Rome also collapsed and changed many times in its history so I guess who cares. Same deal with China really.

>>1778401
Fedoras are too clueless to realise that Catholics=/=all Christians

>>1778320
>Roman legacy ends with Constantinople

Not as disappointed as I am in you

>>1778442
You're right, it ends with the fall of Trebizond in 1461.

>>1778374
That's because it didn't. The Iberians weren't looking for trade routes, they were looking for land to build plantations so they could skip the middle men entirely and grow their own spices. They only happened upon Indian Ocean and Pacific trade later while pursuing the above.

WE WUZ ROMANS N SHIEEET

>>1778393
Urban cores like Lwów/Lviv and Wilno/Vilnius. We really wanted them back, and their inhabitants wanted to be joined with Poland. The issue was the rural areas surrounding these Polish cultural centres weren't really natively Polish. In my opinion in the East we overstretched. It costed us our foreign relations, we literally fucking stripped Lithuania of it's capital(!) when we should have building a regional bloc with them.

It's also need to be said that in Poland there were 2 major conceptions(proposed by 2 major political factions) of how Polish borders should look like. One of them was to incorporate only the territories with Polish majority, the other one was the one which was actually implemented and which involved agressive meddling into other countries affairs.

And after Piłsudzki's death(1935) it went so bad I don't even want to get on this. He was probably the only Pole in the world Hitler didn't think of as of subhuman(and Polish-Nazi relations in the beginning were actually quite ok) and I think despite reckless use of force(in both country and abroad) he was still a better strategist and politician than people who took over after him. After 1935 Poland is just utterly incompetent, stupid, oblivious people on the vital positions.

>>1777599
Nope, no sources on that at all. You'll just have to take his word on it.

>>1778465
Look at the name of that city retard.

Trebizond.

It's Greek, not Latin.

I know what do you mean still though don't compare them it's idiocy or bait.

>>1778494
>>1777599
Just filter out posts with "nigger".

>>1778498
I don't even understand what the fuck you are implying. What difference does it make if it is Greek or Latin? Isn't Constantinople also a Greek word?

>don't compare them it's idiocy or bait.
You really shouldn't be talking when you said in the first place that Roman legacy didn't end at 1453. That's only what WEWUZists believe.

>>1778539
>Isn't Constantinople also a Greek word?
It isn't.

Byzantium is.

>>1778014
>>1778063
I'm not saying that the West had no access whatsoever to Classical texts prior to the fall of the Byzantine Empire, I'm just saying that Greek scholars still brought an influx of many new texts and ideas, as not only did they have more copies of the famous texts, thus allowing even greater proliferation of Classical philosophy than before, but they also had countless more obscure texts that had been written in that 1000+ year span since the classical philosophers, all of which incrementally built upon the ancient texts (admittedly often with significant emphasis upon theology, but the point still stands), thus leading to some radically different viewpoints on the Classical texts that the West had been exposed to.

For example, you only have to look at the writings of Italian scholars from the early Renaissance to see that a revival and reinterpretation of Platonic, Socratic, and Aristotelian thought occurred shortly after the fall of Constantinople. Of course, the classical philosophers got many things wrong at least when it came to science, but the important part is the revival of interest in classical thought that the Greek exodus brought, which formed an important foundation to build upon, ultimately leading to the Renaissance as we know it.

File: 2016-10-04-23-28-10-1014592971.jpg (10KB, 266x190px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 266x190px

>>1778549
>Constantinople's actual name is Constantinopolis
>Polis means City in Greek
>literally translates to City of Constantine

>>1778562
>I'm just saying that Greek scholars still brought an influx of many new texts and ideas
I know. I'm saying that's wrong. It's someone on Wikipedia doing their original research and extrapolating a lot from more mundane events. They're assuming that because X Greek was a tutor or professor of Greek or of philosophy at Y University, they were introducing new ideas. That's not how Renaissance professors worked. They were mostly tutors for teaching and qualifying others for degrees in subjects like Greek, and the actual ideas of the Renaissance came from the students and individuals publishing their own works, not from Byzantine refugees.

If you do look at the writings of Italian scholars, you'd see all their work on Greek sciences occurred in the century before Constantinople was taken by the Turks, and that by the time that happened everyone had moved on to Latin.

>>1778571
"Constantinople" isn't Greek, it's the French butchering of "Constantinoplis"

File: tumblr_n4grt0Ibpp1rfwfq9o1_400.jpg (29KB, 283x283px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 283x283px

>>1778638
>"Constantinople" isn't Greek, it's the French butchering of a Greek word

File: 1474345229788.jpg (52KB, 450x478px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 450x478px

>>1778638
you're certainly right that Constantinople isn't greek

>>1778598
We're arguing about two different things here. While yes, many of the Greek scholars simply worked as private tutors to minor nobles, I'm not arguing that they were the ones introducing ALL the new ideas (although they certainly contributed some). I'm simply saying that they caused a revival of interest in Classical philosophy among the Italian aristocracy, which subsequently spread throughout the rest of Italy. In other words, much of the original thought of the Renaissance came as an indirect, rather than direct, result of the influx of Greek scholars.

>>1778698
Oh no she's back

>>1778704
>they caused a revival of interest in Classical philosophy among the Italian aristocracy
But they didn't. This interest started well before starting in the 12th century and growing onward from there. The Byzantines only provided supply for a demand that was already there.

>>1778706
He got his third (3rd) tripcode deleted so now he's namefagging lol

File: 1447497752936.png (211KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 327x316px

>>1778754

>>1778754
her third one got banned earlier in this thread

>>1778744
It may have existed before then, sure, but you can't deny that the influx of Greek scholars significantly intensified the spread of this interest.

ie, demand existed before, but the fall of Constantinople created additional demand due to being a very symbolic event

>>1777586
>>1777607
>>1777611
Is it the guy with the Turkish name?

>>1778786
But I can, because there's almost no evidence this was the case. Thus far we've gone from new ideas to sparking interest to intensifying, which is the problem with an argument that's made without enough study on the Italian Renaissance before the influx of Greek refugees.

To say nothing of France, Germany, England, and Spain which all saw an increased interest in the Classics before then, and after as well, without their presence.

>>1778806
>>1778786
>>1778744
>>1778704
>>1778598
>>1778562
>>1778014
>>1778063
>>1777970
>>1777683
>>1777593
Yes or No
Did the Fall Of Constantinople impact/encourage the Renaissance?

>>1778850
No. The Renaissance started way earlier and was already in full swing by then.

>>1778806
I'm not claiming to an expert on the topic since I'm a physics major for fucks sake but I'm still pretty damn sure that there's plenty of evidence to support my argument. Unfortunately I have a midterm in three hours so I'm not exactly inclined to go hunting for primary sources on the topic, but even a quick google search turns up plenty of articles attesting to the impact of the Fall of Constantinople on the Renaissance.

>Thus far we've gone from new ideas to sparking interest to intensifying
Not really, I still maintain that all three occurred, however I should have clarified in my earlier posts that each occurred to very different degree.

>>1778850
I would argue yes, and there's plenty of people who know far more about the topic than I do that agree with me.

>>1778874
>but even a quick google search
That's the problem. A quick Google search will turn up anything if you're looking for it. The evidence you're finding is on par with religious apologetics, WEWUZism, and pop history articles written for a certain audience.

>>1778894
It's not just random articles on the internet though. Just look at the sources for that wikipedia article I posted earlier and you'll see entire books written on the topic by respected historians and professors. Admittedly, I haven't read any of them so it's possible that the wikipedia article is misrepresenting them, but just judging by the names alone I would be willing to bet that you could find plenty of substantial and well researched evidence for my argument in some of those books.

>>1779028
I have seen the sources. They're mostly direct sources on the existence of this or that figure and not anything like what is being inferred by the article. The books by historians they do source are ones which are mostly good for their investigation of Greek identity among Byzantine emigres and Byzantine culture influencing pre-Renaissance Latin Christianity, but fall apart in trying to argue more than that. You can get a glimpse of this in peer reviews like this:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-ecclesiastical-history/article/byzantine-east-and-latin-west-two-worlds-of-christendom-in-middle-ages-and-renaissance-studies-in-ecclesiastical-and-cultural-history-by-geanakoplosdeno-j-pp-x-206-16-plates-oxford-blackwell-1966-32s-6d/00F3C39208A0947224604D06695DF9A5

Very little since the byzantine empire was a rump state at best at that point

>>1777578
Eastern Orthodoxy lost its equivalent of Rome and Istanbul is a very important city, even to modern Turks. Constantinople's fall is very significant.