ITT: absolute madmen of history
>>2454428
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pujol_Garc%C3%ADa
Judas Iscariot.
>>2454428
>>2454428
I always find it bizarre that their greatest foe literally arose on their front door step.
>>2456474
To add to this, I always find it odd that at one point the Byzantines/Romans were the 'exact' same size as the Ottoman fief, and yet one kept growing and growing, while the other one just kept floundering. I mean, why come the Byzantines couldn't have bounced upward the way the Ottomans did in the exact same region?
>>2454518
fpbp
>>2454428
>>2454518
This.
>>2456526
The Byzantines were mired in the legacy that the fourth crusade left. Their conquest of Thrace from Latin nobles led them to concentrate their troops in Europe instead of Anatolia, which eventually led to disastrous defeats at the hands of the otttos. Continuous civil wars due to disputed succession did no help either. The Ottomans were also capitalised on Byzantine weakness, since captured Byzantine provinces saw them as liberators freeing them from the oppressive roman taxes imposed on them to sustain their conquests in the Eastern balkans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Nechayev
>>2454428
>>2456567
Eastern Roman Empire was one civil war after the other until its collapse after a certain point. Then the Turks took over Constantinople, renamed it Istanbul and spent 300 years getting cucked right at near victory. For example, their defeat the hands of vlad and the Moravians which left tens of thousands impaled.
>>2454428
>>2457637
Vlad got cucked by his own brother at the end though.
That was also one strength of the ottomans that they had efficient logistics and they always came back as long ad their at the time strong econony could sustain it.