This is an edit btw Emrah is a solid academician, he explained why comparing chattel slavery to Ottoman slavery to make the former look better was a dumb thing to do. People have been making these edits ever since.
Nobody is seriously comparing chattel slavery to Ottoman one as a same thing, but Arabs and Ottomans also enslaved Africans, what they did was not 'breeding' them as cattle, but 'sterilizing' males...
Also Europeans also had Ottoman like slavery pre-industrial era. But I guess making this moronic argument of which slavery was better is totally ok when non-Europeans do it.
This is not an argument of which slavery was better. There is a consistent effort by people like Elon Musk to portray the American chattel slavery as something ordinary or common.
Tons of nations had slavery in the past and it was never something good, enslaving another human being can't possibly be something good after all. However the reason why people focus so much on the American chattel slavery is because it specifically dehumanized a specific race, gave them no way to get out of slavery and worked them to death.
The main argument of this guy here is that American (and other) chattel slavery should be seen different to pre-industrial slavery in other countries. In most other states slaves were usually prisoners, people captured in raids or people who had debt they could not pay, they were not seen as non-humans. They could often free themselves of slavery and had options.
In the US they were simply slaves for their entire lives because they were black. They were not considered real human beings.
but Arabs and Ottomans also enslaved Africans, what they did was not 'breeding' them as cattle, but 'sterilizing' males...
Yes, though the Ottomans only castrated the harem slaves, of which there were several hundred to a thousand at any given time and it rarely surpassed this number. Contrary to popular belief, only like 1% of the Ottoman slaves were castrated. Still sucks though, just stating the numbers.
Well, yes, as I said, in a general, historic context, chattel slavery was especially barbaric, but while the post supposed to be edited, making arguments about which form of slavery makes different peoples less barbaric is stupid.
Elon Musk is a literal scum of the earth... So couldn't care what that subhuman says on his ego scratch site. Hopefully he will be deported one day.
I mentioned Arabs and Turks, because the difference is used to white wash the history of middle eastern slave trade.
Regardless, slavery per historic and economic context in these 2 regions were very different, but never the less it was still a slavery.
Even Africans enslaved Africans. Slavery was form of a punishment and war prisoners usually mostly become slaves. And unlike others, Ottomans slaves were traditionally set free after doing a job, and home slaves were freed without any charge after 7 years at most. There was no lifelong slavery and it didn't pass to children: childrens of slaves were not slaves . For example, after Battle of Varna, war prisoners enslaved and released after working a year or so in a mosque construction. Only the Sultans slaves were lifelong, and they are not really actually slaves (they have higher rank than many free man in the empire).
What makes the Western (American) slavery absolute worst is that they firmly believed that some races (blacks in general) are meant to be slaves; it was purely racially motivated. Otherwise, Mali emperors had slaves and they were also black. For the record, Ottomans even had Turk slaves (non-muslim Turks like Pechenegs etc).
'Subject is what makes my argument work in a detached from reality position I have'
Again, chattel slavery was worse, but also different kind of slavery. Subject is slavery, and you are making the argument that Ottomans weren't as bad, because they enslaved Europeans. My counter argument was that they also enslaved Africans and other peoples, and treatment of those peoples as well as other imperialistic features of the Ottoman rule, doesn't make them look any better, especially when you examine them under historic and regional/cultural context.
No. This tweet simply isn't real. It was tweeted by another user, then one of his friends edited to make it look like it was tweeted by ESG. ESG didn't joke about this.
Well yeah you are right about the joke part. But the main intent was showing what he said isnt senseless Balkan stuff and he is a historian expert with books about the topic
It was already a shithole long before Turks arrived in Anatolia with stuff like Theodosius literally bringing all the Ancient Greek artifacts he could find to Constantinople and destroying them along with pagan temples (he was like Taliban in a way); not to mention all those civil wars.
Yeah, Turkey, despite having the almost same population as rest of the Balkans , has a larger economy and industry than all the Balkan countries combined. And this is despite the European Union funds. I think you should look for the culprit somewhere other than the Turks.
If we combine the balkan countries there's 60 million people. Turkey has 85, we may have not been the best of the best prior to the ottomans but historically: the Renaissance started in the 15th century when we had officially became ottoman emprire and the industrial revolution started in 1760, we didnt become a country till 1830 when talking about Greece and in all those years Turks did nothing about infrastructure . So what ended up happening is we had been at least half a century to a century late to factories and centuries late to ideological advancement so we cant act as if a) population is the same b) the historical lane we were left behind on in the balkans
Germany was destroyed and rebuilt twice, Turkey (excluding Istanbul and its surroundings) has the worst territory of the empire, the Balkans have much more fertile land, and Romania even has oil fields.
+In our 700-year history, the Turks have only gone bankrupt once, unable to pay our debts, and we eventually paid them off. Greece, during its independence, has gone bankrupt three times (to my knowledge), and on the last occasion, managed to have half of its debts written off. Which of us do you think finds cheaper credit?
The Balkans cannot blame us for their bad economy; the fault lies with your absurd leaders (seriously, what kind of people start civil wars in this century?) and to some extent, the Soviets.
Germany had received the divine intervention of American & British banks\sponsors with the goal to cripple the old world twice, the Ottomans had the very textbook example perfect conditions to become the new world centre and utterly failed the moment they became self aware of this possibility.
It takes proactive effort to be across 3 God damn continents and still fail.
It is a whole achievement to have had conquered +5 civilizations and somehow let down all of them by imposing your socio economic standards which not only refuse to evolve, but are somehow +300 year downgrade than what already had pre-existed.
How tf is it even possible to be the first ever nation to ever utilize firearms & cannons for its conquests, but somehow end up relying exclusively on Britain & Germany for importing muskets, mortars, and howitzers as to maintain your $h!tty Empire from collapsing. The Venetians quite literary fought with bows and crossbows against your bombard cannons & muskets, and somehow prevailed.... while having 10x less population and total troops.......
The problem with the Ottomans was that the two systems at the center of the empire were not compatible with capitalism and colonial/empires.
first was a social agreement with conquered peoples
-Low taxes: Ottoman people paid less taxes than any other people in Europe (yes, this includes Christians).
-With the nation system, social life was divided by a system of states without borders. Three neighbors, one Muslim, one Christian, and one Jew were subject to their own social laws.
-The state does not interfere in religion and education in any way, and the Ottomans made great efforts not to trigger religious groups.
During modernization, the Ottomans tried to break this agreement and introduce completely opposite systems.
The second is a state-run economy that can be considered semi-socialist, with prices set by the state. It prevented the formation of a capital-owning bourgeois class necessary for the transition to capitalism. When The state weakened, when a small bourgeoisie emerged, trade was almost entirely with the West, which benefited the minorities who could trade more easily with Europe. The Muslim population was left behind. The economy completely collapsed as the expenses during the Crimean War bankrupted the state.
Germany was NOT totsally destroyed in the factory sector even once! If you actually look into it the german companies DURING the war made more than enough to double their factories if needed post war. NOT to mention they took advantage of the Korean war by selling to them . Also USA wanted them on their side during the cold war, alongside the Marshal plan it was quite the help. They did NOT start from scratch. They already had the bases for what made countries superpowers at the time
Turkey avoided formal default by absorbing crisis costs internally through inflation, devaluation, and IMF intervention, especially in 2001. This is not superior a better economy plan itit is simply a different way of collapsing. Greece defaulted officially in 2012 while Turkey defaults unofficially via inflation.
As for the Balkans, blaming their current economies on “bad leaders” and Soviet influence ignores the fact that the Ottoman Empire left the region with weak infrastructure, low literacy, and almost no industrialization. Newly independent Balkan states began far behind Western Europe and then had to endure two World Wars, communism, and Yugoslav fragmentation. Modern instability did not appear out of nowhere, nor can it be pinned entirely on recent politics
Greece also benefited from Marshall Aid. And I repeat, Anatolia was the region that received the least investment from the Ottomans; the Ottomans invested much more in Thrace and the Balkans, and Thessaloniki was one of the empire's most important ports.
Moreover, although the IMF provided assistance, we paid off the debts; There was no debt forgiveness or cancellation. unlike Greece.
The Balkans started in a much more advantageous position than Turkey after World War I. Turkey's only major advantage is that it managed to avoid entering World War II, and I can't blame Greece for that.Although Romania made a strange switch of sides and seemed to profit from it during World War II.
Greece also got Marshall Aid, but much of it went to rebuild after occupation, civil war, and absorb the huge influx of Greek refugees from Anatolia after the genocide which had us welcoming huge amounts of people in, people that had houses that were never found here (the turks that left Greece lived in much worse conditions) . Turkey avoided WWII, had fewer destructions, and could use its bigger internal market though that was partly luck. Anatolia got little Ottoman investment, and industrialization was held back everywhere. Turkey repaid all IMF debts through tough internal measures, currency crashes, inflation, and reforms,(which left the population in pain) while Greece got debt write-offs. Bottom line: Turkey’s advantages came from post-1923 policies and circumstance, while the Balkans’ struggles have deeper historical and structural roots, not just bad leaders. Of course we had recent bad leaders but you can't compare since you had nothing to lose after
You're ignoring the EU aid and the hundreds of billions of euros in debt that was written off. And this isn't Greece's first time going bankrupt.
Turkey has taken in far more migrants; During the Balkan Wars, many regions, from the Caucasus to balkans , almost completely evacuated their Muslim populations to Turkey; and Greece, during its initial independence, left virtually no Muslims in southern Greece.
Furthermore, it was Greece, not Turkey, that imported a king from abroad and caused a civil war because of this dynasty.
are we talking about the same Turkey that had Merkel's government unashamedly on their side no matter what they did?
we didn't have a choice in our king, I would suggest opening a history book beforehand. Otto was FORCED on us in order to officially become a recognised state. First chance we got we asked for democracy and tried to get rid of the monarchs for ages
edit: you Hitlered enough non muslim locals after the balkan wars to get enough properties for muslim immigrants
This guy unfortunately has enough money to buy all the shawarma spots in Romania. I also feel like he'd eat all the shawarma before he could serve you any
How come you missed that 450-year part of glorious Romanian history? Your lamb meat will be as fair and soft as Radu's buttcheeks slapped by Mehmed II.
Yes, Vlad, but he is known for accidentally chopping off heads along with hair... Since you guys were okay with it for 450 years I don't think you'll mind though.
you're the one obsesed with the past ( we wuz kangs type vibe) while working for minimum wage and either going to bed next to a ugly woman or the only time you see pussy is when you open up your browser.
but keep being proud that one upon a time, alegedly ( because once you go beyond 150 years history has the same credibility as the bible ) turks weren't called cockroaches and karaboga.
On the other hand the reason Ottomans didn't bother with ruling Wallachia/Moldova directly was it simply didn't worth it. They actually tried to leave Hungary alone after Mohacs, too, but the Austrians did everything to take Hungary as a whole. So they had to stay and directly rule Hungary (aside from Erdely) and build a giant chain of fortresses/defensive positions which drained the Turkish treasury and caused their economic decline in a way (ignoring European discoveries to Americas and Asia, of course).
On the other hand, Lajos never became a fuckboi in the Ottoman palace, contrary to Radu "the Fair" : )
Döner was invented in the Ottoman Empire. Arabs from Levant then devised their own version afterwards called shawarma, which comes from the Turkish word "çevirme". In fact, döner also has a similar meaning, so does gyros which also comes from döner.
I know, I was just joking (German döner is superior to Turkish one, though).
I will repeat my other comment regarding history of both words:
As far as I know shawarma also is etymologically Turkic, coming from the same concept (to turn/to roll).
In Russia I guess ex-Soviet Turkic nations (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan etc) introduced it and the name spread to Iron Curtain while in Western Europe almost certainly it was introduced by Turkish gastarbeiters. So Arabs must have nothing to do with the process, both etymologically and culinarily.
As far as I know shawarma does have some difference in spice etc but it's mostly the same thing. Arguable if they should count as a part of the culinary process or not.
(German döner is superior to Turkish one, though).
German döner is superior to the Turkish döner you eat on the street for sure. However there are also high end döner restaurants in Turkey that don't treat it like a fast food. They are rather expensive but they are also unmatched in terms of taste.
I think German döner looses ground compared to mainland döner when it comes to content quality. If they set up the meat like Turks do (as a sauce enjoyer) I think it'd surpass. I feel like they have equal footing in their current state
As far as I know shawarma also is etymologically Turkic, coming from the same concept (to turn/to roll).
In Russia I guess ex-Soviet Turkic nations (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan etc) introduced it and the name spread to Iron Curtain while in Western Europe almost certainly it was introduced by Turkish gastarbeiters. So Arabs must have nothing to do with the process, both etymologically and culinarily.
Jokes aside, if it wasn't for Crimean treason, Vienna most likely didn't have a chance; which does not mean Ottoman Empire wouldn't decline in a decade or two anyway though.
Sure, keep telling yourself that w*stoid, but IRL if it weren't for the Visegrád (or maybe better said, Wyszehrad, in this case) gang you'd have meyhanas instead of cafes.
This is an edit btw Emrah is a solid academician, he explained why comparing chattel slavery to Ottoman slavery to make the former look better was a dumb thing to do. People have been making these edits ever since.
The most famous Ottoman sultan was basically obsessed with two enslaved people his whole life, but Americans could never show that kind of dedication
magnificent century fan detected
I like Civ’s Suleiman more
Where can I find the original edit in question?
https://x.com/caethaersis/status/1998417513324105838
No I meant the tweet by the historian in question about the comparison
Oh, here.
https://x.com/jeandpardaillan/status/1998145651490554125?s=20
thank you!
You're welcome
Its continuation is even more savage:
https://preview.redd.it/3zriydbra67g1.png?width=751&format=png&auto=webp&s=0abc87c0b8ccb0ce5551537baf5692967c8bd9fe
I cracked up at this ngl
Nobody is seriously comparing chattel slavery to Ottoman one as a same thing, but Arabs and Ottomans also enslaved Africans, what they did was not 'breeding' them as cattle, but 'sterilizing' males...
Also Europeans also had Ottoman like slavery pre-industrial era. But I guess making this moronic argument of which slavery was better is totally ok when non-Europeans do it.
This is not an argument of which slavery was better. There is a consistent effort by people like Elon Musk to portray the American chattel slavery as something ordinary or common.
Tons of nations had slavery in the past and it was never something good, enslaving another human being can't possibly be something good after all. However the reason why people focus so much on the American chattel slavery is because it specifically dehumanized a specific race, gave them no way to get out of slavery and worked them to death.
The main argument of this guy here is that American (and other) chattel slavery should be seen different to pre-industrial slavery in other countries. In most other states slaves were usually prisoners, people captured in raids or people who had debt they could not pay, they were not seen as non-humans. They could often free themselves of slavery and had options.
In the US they were simply slaves for their entire lives because they were black. They were not considered real human beings.
Yes, though the Ottomans only castrated the harem slaves, of which there were several hundred to a thousand at any given time and it rarely surpassed this number. Contrary to popular belief, only like 1% of the Ottoman slaves were castrated. Still sucks though, just stating the numbers.
Well, yes, as I said, in a general, historic context, chattel slavery was especially barbaric, but while the post supposed to be edited, making arguments about which form of slavery makes different peoples less barbaric is stupid.
Elon Musk is a literal scum of the earth... So couldn't care what that subhuman says on his ego scratch site. Hopefully he will be deported one day.
I mentioned Arabs and Turks, because the difference is used to white wash the history of middle eastern slave trade.
Regardless, slavery per historic and economic context in these 2 regions were very different, but never the less it was still a slavery.
Even Africans enslaved Africans. Slavery was form of a punishment and war prisoners usually mostly become slaves. And unlike others, Ottomans slaves were traditionally set free after doing a job, and home slaves were freed without any charge after 7 years at most. There was no lifelong slavery and it didn't pass to children: childrens of slaves were not slaves . For example, after Battle of Varna, war prisoners enslaved and released after working a year or so in a mosque construction. Only the Sultans slaves were lifelong, and they are not really actually slaves (they have higher rank than many free man in the empire).
What makes the Western (American) slavery absolute worst is that they firmly believed that some races (blacks in general) are meant to be slaves; it was purely racially motivated. Otherwise, Mali emperors had slaves and they were also black. For the record, Ottomans even had Turk slaves (non-muslim Turks like Pechenegs etc).
Sterilization is a thing empires did that days (ie byzentine to chinese empires, ottomans), nothing special to afrikans
Subject at hand is american chattel slavery and atlantic slave trade. You are delusional
lmao, sure bro
'Subject is what makes my argument work in a detached from reality position I have'
Again, chattel slavery was worse, but also different kind of slavery. Subject is slavery, and you are making the argument that Ottomans weren't as bad, because they enslaved Europeans. My counter argument was that they also enslaved Africans and other peoples, and treatment of those peoples as well as other imperialistic features of the Ottoman rule, doesn't make them look any better, especially when you examine them under historic and regional/cultural context.
He has an argument too and this was the joke after it
Edit: As the person below says the OP s picture had been edited and what i linked is the historians real and only answer.
No. This tweet simply isn't real. It was tweeted by another user, then one of his friends edited to make it look like it was tweeted by ESG. ESG didn't joke about this.
Well yeah you are right about the joke part. But the main intent was showing what he said isnt senseless Balkan stuff and he is a historian expert with books about the topic
So it didn't happen (but if it did they deserved it)?
No, it didn't happen but they deserve it. So it should happen now.
Stop pasting fake news on my shitposting sub smh
He isn't wrong btw
that explains why we barely had factories or infrastructure, the Europeans didnt get here in time🤣
One of the most advanced civilizations for thousands of years and it becomes a backwater after only 400 years of turkish rule. Well played Turkey.
Turkish power 💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿 we did beat one of the most advanced civilization for thousands of years.
It was already a shithole long before Turks arrived in Anatolia with stuff like Theodosius literally bringing all the Ancient Greek artifacts he could find to Constantinople and destroying them along with pagan temples (he was like Taliban in a way); not to mention all those civil wars.
eh, the bishops and cardinals in Rome did the same shit for centuries.
Yeah, Turkey, despite having the almost same population as rest of the Balkans , has a larger economy and industry than all the Balkan countries combined. And this is despite the European Union funds. I think you should look for the culprit somewhere other than the Turks.
If we combine the balkan countries there's 60 million people. Turkey has 85, we may have not been the best of the best prior to the ottomans but historically: the Renaissance started in the 15th century when we had officially became ottoman emprire and the industrial revolution started in 1760, we didnt become a country till 1830 when talking about Greece and in all those years Turks did nothing about infrastructure . So what ended up happening is we had been at least half a century to a century late to factories and centuries late to ideological advancement so we cant act as if a) population is the same b) the historical lane we were left behind on in the balkans
Germany was destroyed and rebuilt twice, Turkey (excluding Istanbul and its surroundings) has the worst territory of the empire, the Balkans have much more fertile land, and Romania even has oil fields.
+In our 700-year history, the Turks have only gone bankrupt once, unable to pay our debts, and we eventually paid them off. Greece, during its independence, has gone bankrupt three times (to my knowledge), and on the last occasion, managed to have half of its debts written off. Which of us do you think finds cheaper credit?
The Balkans cannot blame us for their bad economy; the fault lies with your absurd leaders (seriously, what kind of people start civil wars in this century?) and to some extent, the Soviets.
Germany had received the divine intervention of American & British banks\sponsors with the goal to cripple the old world twice, the Ottomans had the very textbook example perfect conditions to become the new world centre and utterly failed the moment they became self aware of this possibility.
It takes proactive effort to be across 3 God damn continents and still fail.
It is a whole achievement to have had conquered +5 civilizations and somehow let down all of them by imposing your socio economic standards which not only refuse to evolve, but are somehow +300 year downgrade than what already had pre-existed.
How tf is it even possible to be the first ever nation to ever utilize firearms & cannons for its conquests, but somehow end up relying exclusively on Britain & Germany for importing muskets, mortars, and howitzers as to maintain your $h!tty Empire from collapsing. The Venetians quite literary fought with bows and crossbows against your bombard cannons & muskets, and somehow prevailed.... while having 10x less population and total troops.......
The problem with the Ottomans was that the two systems at the center of the empire were not compatible with capitalism and colonial/empires.
first was a social agreement with conquered peoples
-Low taxes: Ottoman people paid less taxes than any other people in Europe (yes, this includes Christians).
-With the nation system, social life was divided by a system of states without borders. Three neighbors, one Muslim, one Christian, and one Jew were subject to their own social laws.
-The state does not interfere in religion and education in any way, and the Ottomans made great efforts not to trigger religious groups.
During modernization, the Ottomans tried to break this agreement and introduce completely opposite systems.
The second is a state-run economy that can be considered semi-socialist, with prices set by the state. It prevented the formation of a capital-owning bourgeois class necessary for the transition to capitalism. When The state weakened, when a small bourgeoisie emerged, trade was almost entirely with the West, which benefited the minorities who could trade more easily with Europe. The Muslim population was left behind. The economy completely collapsed as the expenses during the Crimean War bankrupted the state.
Germany was NOT totsally destroyed in the factory sector even once! If you actually look into it the german companies DURING the war made more than enough to double their factories if needed post war. NOT to mention they took advantage of the Korean war by selling to them . Also USA wanted them on their side during the cold war, alongside the Marshal plan it was quite the help. They did NOT start from scratch. They already had the bases for what made countries superpowers at the time
Turkey avoided formal default by absorbing crisis costs internally through inflation, devaluation, and IMF intervention, especially in 2001. This is not superior a better economy plan itit is simply a different way of collapsing. Greece defaulted officially in 2012 while Turkey defaults unofficially via inflation.
As for the Balkans, blaming their current economies on “bad leaders” and Soviet influence ignores the fact that the Ottoman Empire left the region with weak infrastructure, low literacy, and almost no industrialization. Newly independent Balkan states began far behind Western Europe and then had to endure two World Wars, communism, and Yugoslav fragmentation. Modern instability did not appear out of nowhere, nor can it be pinned entirely on recent politics
Greece also benefited from Marshall Aid. And I repeat, Anatolia was the region that received the least investment from the Ottomans; the Ottomans invested much more in Thrace and the Balkans, and Thessaloniki was one of the empire's most important ports.
Moreover, although the IMF provided assistance, we paid off the debts; There was no debt forgiveness or cancellation. unlike Greece.
The Balkans started in a much more advantageous position than Turkey after World War I. Turkey's only major advantage is that it managed to avoid entering World War II, and I can't blame Greece for that.Although Romania made a strange switch of sides and seemed to profit from it during World War II.
Greece also got Marshall Aid, but much of it went to rebuild after occupation, civil war, and absorb the huge influx of Greek refugees from Anatolia after the genocide which had us welcoming huge amounts of people in, people that had houses that were never found here (the turks that left Greece lived in much worse conditions) . Turkey avoided WWII, had fewer destructions, and could use its bigger internal market though that was partly luck. Anatolia got little Ottoman investment, and industrialization was held back everywhere. Turkey repaid all IMF debts through tough internal measures, currency crashes, inflation, and reforms,(which left the population in pain) while Greece got debt write-offs. Bottom line: Turkey’s advantages came from post-1923 policies and circumstance, while the Balkans’ struggles have deeper historical and structural roots, not just bad leaders. Of course we had recent bad leaders but you can't compare since you had nothing to lose after
You're ignoring the EU aid and the hundreds of billions of euros in debt that was written off. And this isn't Greece's first time going bankrupt.
Turkey has taken in far more migrants; During the Balkan Wars, many regions, from the Caucasus to balkans , almost completely evacuated their Muslim populations to Turkey; and Greece, during its initial independence, left virtually no Muslims in southern Greece.
Furthermore, it was Greece, not Turkey, that imported a king from abroad and caused a civil war because of this dynasty.
are we talking about the same Turkey that had Merkel's government unashamedly on their side no matter what they did?
we didn't have a choice in our king, I would suggest opening a history book beforehand. Otto was FORCED on us in order to officially become a recognised state. First chance we got we asked for democracy and tried to get rid of the monarchs for ages
edit: you Hitlered enough non muslim locals after the balkan wars to get enough properties for muslim immigrants
Almost the same? Turkey has more people than Germany, while the Balkans all toghether is about 60 million people.
They actually did, in a way.
and never left since
Korea become independent in 50's and look what they achieved with no underground resources tourism etc.
Starting in 1441? Like we weren't selling each other...
I mean like we weren't Human Resourced since 800's.
I guess they meant start of Ottoman "participation" in Nogai-Crimean HR management.
ok buddy, now make sure you make my shawarma extra spicy...
Use a correct flair, westoid...
This guy unfortunately has enough money to buy all the shawarma spots in Romania. I also feel like he'd eat all the shawarma before he could serve you any
Döner, not shawarma
who cares bro, can i pay by card ?
No, cash only. I don't pay taxes.
As spicy as what Mehmed II fed Radu in his bed?
i don't know and don't care who that it, also i want a lamb doner.
How come you missed that 450-year part of glorious Romanian history? Your lamb meat will be as fair and soft as Radu's buttcheeks slapped by Mehmed II.
who cares bro, now is your brother around next saturday to give me a haircut ??
Yes, Vlad, but he is known for accidentally chopping off heads along with hair... Since you guys were okay with it for 450 years I don't think you'll mind though.
not sure who's these "you guys" you keeps saying, my ancestors butt-r***d all
cockroachesturks they could find.best kebab remover in the balkans.
Your flair says Romanians, who got stomped like
cockroachesby Turks for 450 years.Best cum bucket in the balkans.
and yours said turk and now mongol ... so what.
you're the one obsesed with the past ( we wuz kangs type vibe) while working for minimum wage and either going to bed next to a ugly woman or the only time you see pussy is when you open up your browser.
but keep being proud that one upon a time, alegedly ( because once you go beyond 150 years history has the same credibility as the bible ) turks weren't called cockroaches and karaboga.
We were never conquered by the Ottomans as you were after Mohacs. The only cheeks that were clapped were Louis' by Suleiman.
Dude, this is a meme sub and I'm just joking.
On the other hand the reason Ottomans didn't bother with ruling Wallachia/Moldova directly was it simply didn't worth it. They actually tried to leave Hungary alone after Mohacs, too, but the Austrians did everything to take Hungary as a whole. So they had to stay and directly rule Hungary (aside from Erdely) and build a giant chain of fortresses/defensive positions which drained the Turkish treasury and caused their economic decline in a way (ignoring European discoveries to Americas and Asia, of course).
On the other hand, Lajos never became a fuckboi in the Ottoman palace, contrary to Radu "the Fair" : )
that guy has enough money to buy all of your mudhuts
wow impressive
That's German food and is kebab
German one is döner (Dönner macht schönner). Shawarma is used in Russian colonies as far as I see.
Döner was invented in the Ottoman Empire. Arabs from Levant then devised their own version afterwards called shawarma, which comes from the Turkish word "çevirme". In fact, döner also has a similar meaning, so does gyros which also comes from döner.
Germans don't come into the equation really.
False. Doner is German (invented by Greeks obviously but we let them take the credit for more money)
I know, I was just joking (German döner is superior to Turkish one, though).
I will repeat my other comment regarding history of both words:
As far as I know shawarma also is etymologically Turkic, coming from the same concept (to turn/to roll).
In Russia I guess ex-Soviet Turkic nations (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan etc) introduced it and the name spread to Iron Curtain while in Western Europe almost certainly it was introduced by Turkish gastarbeiters. So Arabs must have nothing to do with the process, both etymologically and culinarily.
I understand.
As far as I know shawarma does have some difference in spice etc but it's mostly the same thing. Arguable if they should count as a part of the culinary process or not.
German döner is superior to the Turkish döner you eat on the street for sure. However there are also high end döner restaurants in Turkey that don't treat it like a fast food. They are rather expensive but they are also unmatched in terms of taste.
I think German döner looses ground compared to mainland döner when it comes to content quality. If they set up the meat like Turks do (as a sauce enjoyer) I think it'd surpass. I feel like they have equal footing in their current state
Shawarma is very popular in countries with many Arabs. Here in the Netherlands you can get shawarma and döner everywhere.
As far as I know shawarma also is etymologically Turkic, coming from the same concept (to turn/to roll).
In Russia I guess ex-Soviet Turkic nations (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan etc) introduced it and the name spread to Iron Curtain while in Western Europe almost certainly it was introduced by Turkish gastarbeiters. So Arabs must have nothing to do with the process, both etymologically and culinarily.
1000% KARABOGA VICTORY
I mean, the Ottomans were the legit heirs of Rome, so of course they were
https://preview.redd.it/7s3j3jzbas6g1.png?width=578&format=png&auto=webp&s=805f4d71e88871195efd168110f08f7bae61e4c1
Do you seriously believe this shit? Anything white Man write is fact for asian Man?
The turks were very noble people ☺️
The Greeks were too
Turks enslaved Balkaners. When trying to conquer Vienna, things changed; it was r/2westerneurope4u for them to manage.
Turks slaved everyone.
Jokes aside, if it wasn't for Crimean treason, Vienna most likely didn't have a chance; which does not mean Ottoman Empire wouldn't decline in a decade or two anyway though.
Yeah, turks first encountered western europeans at vienna lool
Sure, keep telling yourself that w*stoid, but IRL if it weren't for the Visegrád (or maybe better said, Wyszehrad, in this case) gang you'd have meyhanas instead of cafes.
Can't we have both? I'm hungry!
Yeah, but Europe kinda ends at Germany. Those are Eastern Europe.
esg ne dion
Wait….. HE SAY HE NOT EUROPEAN???
what a cool looking squid
Can we all agree to not compare types of slavery? All forms are bad
This is a shitposting sub, don't take it too seriously.