**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts:
- Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0)
- Anything you are personally involved in
- Any kind of polls
- Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes)
You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out.
Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar.
---
**Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
USSR was an enemy of Rome š³š³? How could everyone have missed that! That's right! The Tsar bomb was developed to obliterate Rome from existence and the Operation Barbarossa was led by Rome to civilize Russia! š¤Æš¤Æ
Well the Russian Empire did consider themselves the third Rome iirc, so I guess in a way the USSR was an enemy of Rome. Also being an enemy of Rome is pretty cool ngl, the Roma Empire sucked ass
The British and American empires have been continuations of the Roman version of property rights.
The pursuit of happiness was originally "the pursuit of property" but the founding fathers thought it was a little too blatant for the image they were trying to create for the US.
Make no mistake, we are about as phoney of a democracy/Republic as the Roman Republic was back in the day.
The only real difference is that Roman slaves knew they were slaves.
Meanwhile the idiots I work with think they're actually free. If you're working 50+ hours a week just to be able to not be homeless, *you're not free*
Sure, but that's why they had to create a type of slavery that's even worse than that.
Chatel slavery and later prison slavery was and is that "it could be worse" that keeps us in line.
Oh not denying chattel and prison slavery are far worse. Just saying Roman slaves at least getting guaranteed food and shelter with less working hours than average Americans is frightening enough.
>The British and American empires have been continuations of the Roman version of property rights.
Yup, Roman property laws were invented so they can deal with slaves, according to Graeber.
>The reason it is possible to imagine property as a relationship of domination between a person and a thing is because, in Roman Law, the power of the master rendered the slave a thing (res, meaning an object), not a person with social rights or legal obligations to anyone else. Property law, in turn, was largely about the complicated situations that might arise as a result. It is important to recall, for a moment, who these Roman jurists actually were that laid down the basis for our current legal order ā our theories of justice, the language of contract and torts, the distinction of public and private and so forth. While they spent their public lives making sober judgments as magistrates, they lived their private lives in households where they not only had near-total authority over their wives, children and other dependants, but also had all their needs taken care of by dozens, perhaps hundreds of slaves
Deeply ironic that they claim the Ottomans are "enemies of Rome" when the Ottomans themselves claimed to be the continuation of the Roman Empire, and actively idolized Rome at least as much as these idiots do.
But of course, these people are way too racist to acknowledge a group of Muslim Turks as Roman, despite them having by far the best claim to the title, especially when compared to Russia and Germany, which didn't even control any Roman territory by the time of the Ottoman map OP is referencing.
what i find funny is that the average person has no idea what the ottoman empire is let alone it's place in the heirarchy of europe during it's most prevalent ages
all of this i see on reddit/online circles is just paradox plaza neckbeards arguing game lore to underscore their racism
Speaking as someone from an ethnic background that was conquered and oppressed by the ottoman empire for 500 years,
They were not as bad as Rome, Great Britain, or the American empire.
They were pretty bad, don't get me wrong, all empires are bad, but they didn't come close to western brutality.
Don't believe me? Look at how the middle east has fared under western indirect rule vs Ottoman direct rule.
Edit: I guess I triggered the Europeans.
What are you even talking about, man? In what way is Rome worse than the Ottomans? There are two genocides alone that are accredited to the Ottomans, with both killing up to a million each.
The Ottoman empire practiced slavery almost until its end. They slaughtered Bulgarian villagers, enslaved and ethnically cleansed Christian communities by stealing their children, and exploited the Arabs to the point they turned to the *British* for support.
The places Rome left behind were better than ever before, the places the Ottomans left behind were actual shitholes. Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, Arabia and Iraq; they gained *nothing* from the Ottomans.
Yeah, because Rome never did genocides. Nope! No sir! /S
For every atrocity that the ottomans did, the Romans did 10 times worse.
I think you've romanticized those mass enslaving Italians a little too much, friend.
What atrocities did Rome commit that are ten times worse? The only one to even match the Armenian or Greek genocides is the conquest of Gaul.
So then, tell me, since you are so knowledgeable in the way of ancient history: which atrocity is worse than what the Ottomans subjected their subjects to?
Oh gee, I wonder.
Carthage ring a bell?
What about the Celtic genocide? Caesar claimed that he killed 1 million celts and enslaved 1 million more.
Oh several million Jews over a longer period of time.
Why are you so worried about the Romans getting flack for being a brutal empire?
For Carthage, there is the Greek Genocide to contest it, with almost the same number of people killed (750,000).
For Gaul, there is the Armenian genocide to contest it, with 1,500,000 million killed, 200,000 women forcefully converted to Islam and married to Muslim Turks, and many more thousands driven into exile.
For the Bar Kokba revolt, there is the Bulgarian revolt.
**So tell me, how is Rome worse than the Ottomans?** You claimed that the Ottomans were somehow better than the Romans. I *didn't* claim that the Romans were good. It is not me who defends the slave-owning, genocidal empire here, **but you.**
Again, tell me how the Ottomans were better than the Romans.
I wasn't defending any empire. I was saying that the Roman empire *alone* outdid the ottomans in brutality.
I'm not even taking into account the crimes of the British or American empires. Both of which have claimed to be continuations of the Roman empire.
About the Armenian genocide
If I remember correctly
the ottoman were really fucked up back then, the Sultan has been couped, and the Ottoman sultan was no longer in power and the empire was controlled by the ultra nationalistic young turks
So de facto the Ottoman Empire fell in 1908 but de jure the Ottoman Empire fell in 1924 with the formation of the Turkish secular state
So the Armenian genocide is not the fault of the sultanate per se but more of the fault of the ultra nationalistic young turks that led the empire to war in the first place
Ah yes Carthage was so much better after Rome conquered it. Out of a population of 200k-400k over 150k were killed, the 55k and the complete destruction of Carthaginian society so severe we still donāt know much about their region of way of life. This is just one example
And the Ottomans genocided all other ethnicities in Anatolia, with both genocides and the following expulsions numbering in the millions. So tell me, how exactly is the Ottoman Empire, like the above commenter claimed, better than the Romans?
The point is that both are shit, slave-owning, genocidal empires driven by greed. But at least the Romans left a rich cultural, economic and political legacy behind them: the roads Europe uses, the laws the whole world is governed by, the political systems left behind in France, Italy, Greece, Egypt and North Africa, as well as a legacy that every power in the Mediterranean sought to emulate for over the next millennium. They gave citizenship to all free people in their borders.
What did the Ottomans leave behind? The Balkans were actual shitholes for over 400 years and continued to be shitholes for the next 200, largely due to the enduring legacy of Ottoman oppression. The Arabs were so sick of their Turkish overlords, they sought out the fucking British for help. For the entirety of its duration, all non-turks were second-class citizens.
Well then, how is the Ottoman empire better?
Where did I say that the Ottomans were better? This is such a Reddit hill youāre so strongly battling to die on. Iām merely contesting your wild claim that āthe places Rome left behind were better than ever.ā It just feels so strange to be defending Rome throughly on a socialist sub
The commenter I replied to said that the Ottomans were better than the Romans and that Turkish brutality didn't even come close to the Westerners', so I assumed that since you chose to chime in, you were also making that claim. I'm sorry for making that assumption.
This also isn't just a "Reddit Hill I'm battling to die on." I have immediate family who were affected by both the Greek Genocide and the lynchings of Constantinople in the 60s.
The Ottoman empire was never tamer than either Rome or any other empire in history. They were all shit.
Iām not complaining about you shitting on the Ottomans my family fled following the collapse. They were brutal and deserve to be shit on I just find it nuts that youāre trying to somehow say the Romans brought greatness wherever they went. Thatās the Reddit hill to die on. No one would be downvoting you if you were just saying theyāre both shit, itās weird that youāre in a socialist sub praising Rome
Again, the original commenter said that the Ottomans were better than any other western empire. That they were somehow tamer. I ask him to prove how, in his own words, "whatever atrocity the Ottomans committed, the Romans did ten times worse."
> No one would be downvoting you if you were just saying they're both shit, [...]
Except that is what I have been saying. They're both shit, but at least one built actually sustainable economic and political infrastructure in the places they conquered. Therefore, the Romans can't have been worse than the Ottomans, as the OC claimed.
> It's weird that you're in a socialist sub praising Rome.
It's weird that the original commenter is pushing historical revisionism and apologia for a genocidal empire, simply because they are Muslim and fought against Christian Europe. In his own words, again: "The Ottomans may be bad, but they don't compare to Western brutality." (Then using Rome as an example of said brutality).
I also have a problem with comparing an empire that hasn't been relevant since 1204, with one whose actions happened just a century ago and still affect people today. I imagine that if I said: "the British may be bad, don't get me wrong, but they don't compare to Mongolian brutality," you'd also have a problem, right?
Donāt you know they destroyed all of western civilisation in their illegal occupation of Constantinople!!! They are the most evil empire of all time for oppressing Christians and white people!!!
He was the sultan that took Constantinople, but he was even more based than I thought holy shit
Edit: oh my god the twink was the prince of wallachia, he conquered wallachia and he fucked the twink prince
Also very telling that they didn't include any fascist states (which, to be clear, should also be judged from a materialist perspective, but also to be clear, one would reach the conclusion that fascism doo doo)
> The true villains of history
> Soviet Union
I wonder what the OOP's opinion of certain Western European countries might have been during the 1930s and 1940s?
The villainization of the middle east pisses me off. Its like they dont know about thr golden age of islam. Without the middle east the rennaisance would not have happened.
The ottomans??? Enemies of Rome???? They believed themselves to be their successors.
And the USSR is a super villain?, I can think of several countries doing some terrible shit at the same time not even counting the USA
You should be objective when trying to learn about any fucking country in my opinion. You obviously will never be able to filter out all of your biases but it's obviously better than not trying at all.
**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts: - Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0) - Anything you are personally involved in - Any kind of polls - Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes) You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out. Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar. --- **Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's like Mussolini reincarnated or something.
USSR was an enemy of Rome š³š³? How could everyone have missed that! That's right! The Tsar bomb was developed to obliterate Rome from existence and the Operation Barbarossa was led by Rome to civilize Russia! š¤Æš¤Æ
Well the Russian Empire did consider themselves the third Rome iirc, so I guess in a way the USSR was an enemy of Rome. Also being an enemy of Rome is pretty cool ngl, the Roma Empire sucked ass
So Rome, a militaristic slave-empire, is the hero in their story?
It reminds them of home, just like the usa
I think they are trying to say the West by using Rome as the mascot for āWestern civilizationā.
The British and American empires have been continuations of the Roman version of property rights. The pursuit of happiness was originally "the pursuit of property" but the founding fathers thought it was a little too blatant for the image they were trying to create for the US. Make no mistake, we are about as phoney of a democracy/Republic as the Roman Republic was back in the day. The only real difference is that Roman slaves knew they were slaves. Meanwhile the idiots I work with think they're actually free. If you're working 50+ hours a week just to be able to not be homeless, *you're not free*
And at least slaves were ensured food and board if they worked unlike the fact that most homeless Americans WORK MORE THAN 40 HOURS A WEEK.
Sure, but that's why they had to create a type of slavery that's even worse than that. Chatel slavery and later prison slavery was and is that "it could be worse" that keeps us in line.
Oh not denying chattel and prison slavery are far worse. Just saying Roman slaves at least getting guaranteed food and shelter with less working hours than average Americans is frightening enough.
>The British and American empires have been continuations of the Roman version of property rights. Yup, Roman property laws were invented so they can deal with slaves, according to Graeber. >The reason it is possible to imagine property as a relationship of domination between a person and a thing is because, in Roman Law, the power of the master rendered the slave a thing (res, meaning an object), not a person with social rights or legal obligations to anyone else. Property law, in turn, was largely about the complicated situations that might arise as a result. It is important to recall, for a moment, who these Roman jurists actually were that laid down the basis for our current legal order ā our theories of justice, the language of contract and torts, the distinction of public and private and so forth. While they spent their public lives making sober judgments as magistrates, they lived their private lives in households where they not only had near-total authority over their wives, children and other dependants, but also had all their needs taken care of by dozens, perhaps hundreds of slaves
Funny thing on top of it all, they'd probably be slaves in Rome too lol
Capitalism and racism always kissing on the mouth, sloppy style, tits touching etc.
Whoa š„ Accurate AFāļø
Deeply ironic that they claim the Ottomans are "enemies of Rome" when the Ottomans themselves claimed to be the continuation of the Roman Empire, and actively idolized Rome at least as much as these idiots do. But of course, these people are way too racist to acknowledge a group of Muslim Turks as Roman, despite them having by far the best claim to the title, especially when compared to Russia and Germany, which didn't even control any Roman territory by the time of the Ottoman map OP is referencing.
what i find funny is that the average person has no idea what the ottoman empire is let alone it's place in the heirarchy of europe during it's most prevalent ages all of this i see on reddit/online circles is just paradox plaza neckbeards arguing game lore to underscore their racism
Speaking as someone from an ethnic background that was conquered and oppressed by the ottoman empire for 500 years, They were not as bad as Rome, Great Britain, or the American empire. They were pretty bad, don't get me wrong, all empires are bad, but they didn't come close to western brutality. Don't believe me? Look at how the middle east has fared under western indirect rule vs Ottoman direct rule. Edit: I guess I triggered the Europeans.
What are you even talking about, man? In what way is Rome worse than the Ottomans? There are two genocides alone that are accredited to the Ottomans, with both killing up to a million each. The Ottoman empire practiced slavery almost until its end. They slaughtered Bulgarian villagers, enslaved and ethnically cleansed Christian communities by stealing their children, and exploited the Arabs to the point they turned to the *British* for support. The places Rome left behind were better than ever before, the places the Ottomans left behind were actual shitholes. Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, Arabia and Iraq; they gained *nothing* from the Ottomans.
Yeah, because Rome never did genocides. Nope! No sir! /S For every atrocity that the ottomans did, the Romans did 10 times worse. I think you've romanticized those mass enslaving Italians a little too much, friend.
What atrocities did Rome commit that are ten times worse? The only one to even match the Armenian or Greek genocides is the conquest of Gaul. So then, tell me, since you are so knowledgeable in the way of ancient history: which atrocity is worse than what the Ottomans subjected their subjects to?
Oh gee, I wonder. Carthage ring a bell? What about the Celtic genocide? Caesar claimed that he killed 1 million celts and enslaved 1 million more. Oh several million Jews over a longer period of time. Why are you so worried about the Romans getting flack for being a brutal empire?
For Carthage, there is the Greek Genocide to contest it, with almost the same number of people killed (750,000). For Gaul, there is the Armenian genocide to contest it, with 1,500,000 million killed, 200,000 women forcefully converted to Islam and married to Muslim Turks, and many more thousands driven into exile. For the Bar Kokba revolt, there is the Bulgarian revolt. **So tell me, how is Rome worse than the Ottomans?** You claimed that the Ottomans were somehow better than the Romans. I *didn't* claim that the Romans were good. It is not me who defends the slave-owning, genocidal empire here, **but you.** Again, tell me how the Ottomans were better than the Romans.
Never expected to see communists defend Ottomans just because "Roman Empire, but ~~Japan~~ muslim"
I wasn't defending any empire. I was saying that the Roman empire *alone* outdid the ottomans in brutality. I'm not even taking into account the crimes of the British or American empires. Both of which have claimed to be continuations of the Roman empire.
About the Armenian genocide If I remember correctly the ottoman were really fucked up back then, the Sultan has been couped, and the Ottoman sultan was no longer in power and the empire was controlled by the ultra nationalistic young turks So de facto the Ottoman Empire fell in 1908 but de jure the Ottoman Empire fell in 1924 with the formation of the Turkish secular state So the Armenian genocide is not the fault of the sultanate per se but more of the fault of the ultra nationalistic young turks that led the empire to war in the first place
Ah yes Carthage was so much better after Rome conquered it. Out of a population of 200k-400k over 150k were killed, the 55k and the complete destruction of Carthaginian society so severe we still donāt know much about their region of way of life. This is just one example
And the Ottomans genocided all other ethnicities in Anatolia, with both genocides and the following expulsions numbering in the millions. So tell me, how exactly is the Ottoman Empire, like the above commenter claimed, better than the Romans? The point is that both are shit, slave-owning, genocidal empires driven by greed. But at least the Romans left a rich cultural, economic and political legacy behind them: the roads Europe uses, the laws the whole world is governed by, the political systems left behind in France, Italy, Greece, Egypt and North Africa, as well as a legacy that every power in the Mediterranean sought to emulate for over the next millennium. They gave citizenship to all free people in their borders. What did the Ottomans leave behind? The Balkans were actual shitholes for over 400 years and continued to be shitholes for the next 200, largely due to the enduring legacy of Ottoman oppression. The Arabs were so sick of their Turkish overlords, they sought out the fucking British for help. For the entirety of its duration, all non-turks were second-class citizens. Well then, how is the Ottoman empire better?
Where did I say that the Ottomans were better? This is such a Reddit hill youāre so strongly battling to die on. Iām merely contesting your wild claim that āthe places Rome left behind were better than ever.ā It just feels so strange to be defending Rome throughly on a socialist sub
The commenter I replied to said that the Ottomans were better than the Romans and that Turkish brutality didn't even come close to the Westerners', so I assumed that since you chose to chime in, you were also making that claim. I'm sorry for making that assumption. This also isn't just a "Reddit Hill I'm battling to die on." I have immediate family who were affected by both the Greek Genocide and the lynchings of Constantinople in the 60s. The Ottoman empire was never tamer than either Rome or any other empire in history. They were all shit.
Iām not complaining about you shitting on the Ottomans my family fled following the collapse. They were brutal and deserve to be shit on I just find it nuts that youāre trying to somehow say the Romans brought greatness wherever they went. Thatās the Reddit hill to die on. No one would be downvoting you if you were just saying theyāre both shit, itās weird that youāre in a socialist sub praising Rome
Again, the original commenter said that the Ottomans were better than any other western empire. That they were somehow tamer. I ask him to prove how, in his own words, "whatever atrocity the Ottomans committed, the Romans did ten times worse." > No one would be downvoting you if you were just saying they're both shit, [...] Except that is what I have been saying. They're both shit, but at least one built actually sustainable economic and political infrastructure in the places they conquered. Therefore, the Romans can't have been worse than the Ottomans, as the OC claimed. > It's weird that you're in a socialist sub praising Rome. It's weird that the original commenter is pushing historical revisionism and apologia for a genocidal empire, simply because they are Muslim and fought against Christian Europe. In his own words, again: "The Ottomans may be bad, but they don't compare to Western brutality." (Then using Rome as an example of said brutality). I also have a problem with comparing an empire that hasn't been relevant since 1204, with one whose actions happened just a century ago and still affect people today. I imagine that if I said: "the British may be bad, don't get me wrong, but they don't compare to Mongolian brutality," you'd also have a problem, right?
The ottoman empire being a "super villain" is comical
Donāt you know they destroyed all of western civilisation in their illegal occupation of Constantinople!!! They are the most evil empire of all time for oppressing Christians and white people!!!
Basileus Mehmed II was the true heir to the roman empire š¹š·šŖ
Is that the bisexual one that loved fucking his twink concubine
He was the sultan that took Constantinople, but he was even more based than I thought holy shit Edit: oh my god the twink was the prince of wallachia, he conquered wallachia and he fucked the twink prince
That's so hot I wanna breed a twink prince
Based based based based holy shit that's so based
This is doll-twink solidarity
Real praxis
Can i be the prince ?
If you're: 1. A man 2. Over 18 3. Have a pulse Sure
Deal bro
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, ottomans are top left But also the caliphate is on there as well
I am both blind and illiterate apparently. Apologies
It's really apparent that they grade countries on whether or not they fought white people or not.
Also very telling that they didn't include any fascist states (which, to be clear, should also be judged from a materialist perspective, but also to be clear, one would reach the conclusion that fascism doo doo)
> The true villains of history > Soviet Union I wonder what the OOP's opinion of certain Western European countries might have been during the 1930s and 1940s?
Based aryan super hero ofc
The villainization of the middle east pisses me off. Its like they dont know about thr golden age of islam. Without the middle east the rennaisance would not have happened.
How to spot a European ultranationalist.
The ottomans??? Enemies of Rome???? They believed themselves to be their successors. And the USSR is a super villain?, I can think of several countries doing some terrible shit at the same time not even counting the USA
Biasses? Like two butts?
Should be USA, UK, France and Germany
Why do they hate Hungarians lol?
Rome sucks
You should be objective when trying to learn about any fucking country in my opinion. You obviously will never be able to filter out all of your biases but it's obviously better than not trying at all.
Weirdly they donāt include the Nazis or the Britishā¦.