Greatest king of the Dark Age

Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Unknown Constantine XI had the chance to live free and to surrender the holy town of constantinople to Jihadis, but he prefer to stand up and fight till the bitter end. He should be a symbol for every european and westerner. What if he had surrendered without a single fight and muslim ottomans would be carry on their jihad in northern europe? Who would stop them? The siege of constantinople delayed the muslim conquest of Europe, they had to take over the empire of pontos and other Greek kingdoms which created some delay on the plans to turn europe into a caliphate.   You are offensive on a comedic level, your posts are full of idiotic claim that have no backing. "Jihadis" I do not see how you make parallels between Ottoman troops and I presume Al-Queada,  who at this point have been multi religous (Serbian cavlarly served very well in Ottoman campaigns - they were Christains) There were other Christains too serving the Ottoman sultan and recieving lands and titles without converting.

Serbian cavalry serving well to the Ottomans?

Knut, of the single reason I wanted to even out the scores a little.

it was between Charlemagne & Attila

but I think Attila shocked the world more.

But Charlemagne structured west & central europe

Attila won

Originally posted by Unknown Was it Mehmet that prayed to hallah into a christian church or not after conquering constantinople? Did he convert the churches of constantinople into mosques or not? including the largest christian orthodox church in the world! If those are not part of Jihad then what are they? In addition there is a term called Devsirme, have a look on it, in english is called "blood tax"! Have a look on it to see how muslims were treating their christian dhimmis. Surely they were christians, especially the top priests, since they had many benefits from coperating with muslims.

Was it not the Spanish that converted the Islamic mosques in Spain? Was it not the Greeks that did much the same after independence. Was it not that a major part of muslim residents of the Balkans were persecuted and slaughtered? Yes. We can all play the blame game, and guess what it does not get us anywhere.

Mehmet was a monotheist, a muslim, and as a muslim he had a connection to Christianity. Unlike Umar he chose to pray at a christian Church. However, at that time Constantinople had been defeated and depopulated already. There were enslavements and further depopulation as with any other siege by any other power of the period. Furthermore, he is accounted with freeing and repopulating the city with substantial numbers of Byzantines as well. Nevertheless these buildings were obsolete in a city now more and more populated by Muslims, converting them was a natural step, and one of the reasons they were preserved into the modern day. Much the same as in Spain. The Muslims were a dwindling population especially after the monarchy issued decrees against them. What else but to convert them to Churches then. It was a natural step. Similar things happen worldwide.

However, Umar entered Jersualem as a city that still retained a majority Christian population, and he chose not to pray at the Church in order not to set up a prescedent for future muslims who may use it as a reason to steal church property.

The same is accorded by Salah ad-Din when Jerusalem fell to his forces. He let the greedy bishop get away with tons of gold that could have been used to free more citizens. He did not want to set any prescedents.


"top priests" did not fight. Top nobles and minor nobles who could afford to retain a horse, and to train fought. They recieved the same land grants as Muslims.

Your knowledge of the period is mediocre at best, offensive at worst. Read up on actual history of both the Byzantine state, and the Ottoman.

Osman's Dream is a good start, as is Treadgold's book on Byzantium.

Originally posted by Yugoslav Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Unknown Constantine XI had the chance to live free and to surrender the holy town of constantinople to Jihadis, but he prefer to stand up and fight till the bitter end. He should be a symbol for every european and westerner. What if he had surrendered without a single fight and muslim ottomans would be carry on their jihad in northern europe? Who would stop them? The siege of constantinople delayed the muslim conquest of Europe, they had to take over the empire of pontos and other Greek kingdoms which created some delay on the plans to turn europe into a caliphate.   You are offensive on a comedic level, your posts are full of idiotic claim that have no backing. "Jihadis" I do not see how you make parallels between Ottoman troops and I presume Al-Queada,  who at this point have been multi religous (Serbian cavlarly served very well in Ottoman campaigns - they were Christains) There were other Christains too serving the Ottoman sultan and recieving lands and titles without converting.     Serbian cavalry serving well to the Ottomans?

Yes. The Serbs were not one entire state at the time. Many principalities became vassals in the late 1300s. What do vassals do... much the same as in any client-patron system they assist the patron. At the siege of Constantinople and agaisnt the Crusade sent before the siege they served well in attaining a Ottoman victory.

Other than that you could see the same with the Byzantine state that had become a vassal to the Ottomans and was required to serve with the Sultan in military endevours.

Charles Martel was a king??? Oh dear, and I thought he was just the Morovingian king's Major Domus...

Edited by Sikander - 28-Nov-2007 at 22:56

Originally posted by es_bih They had already lost before Kosovo, which played a more symbolic role than anything.

Edited by Reginmund - 29-Nov-2007 at 12:09

What about great African kings of the dark ages? And not northern Africa. I am talking about more of heatland africa. There were great kings doing great things down there too in this time period ya know!

As Lazar had been Prince, and Plocnik if I am correct had been under control of Tvrtko I

Originally posted by Reginmund Originally posted by es_bih Again neither of those circumstances have anything to do with the "free world," therefore, such terminology is faulty and your defence of it is questionable. If he had said either of the two then that would have been a completely different matter. To compare any part of the world in that time with a modern concept such as the "free world" is an absolute fallacy. Yes, and I never supported it as such, I was merely pointing out his importance, largely symbolical though it may be. Originally posted by es_bih Yes. The Serbs were not one entire state at the time. Many principalities became vassals in the late 1300s. What do vassals do... much the same as in any client-patron system they assist the patron. At the siege of Constantinople and agaisnt the Crusade sent before the siege they served well in attaining a Ottoman victory. Serbian heavy cavalry played a decisive part in the defeat of the crusaders at Nicopolis in 1396 as well, where they broke the seemingly unstoppable charge of the French knights by riding them down when they were fighting uphill and on foot. It wasn't always so though; not even a decade before the battle of Nicopolis the Serbians clashed with the Ottomans in the battle of Kosovo, where the Ottomans won a pyrrhic victory and were able to reduce the Serbs to vassalage.

I always thought to say that the Serbs and their allies won a Pyrrhic victory at Amsfeld in 1389 - with their victory being so devastating that they even largely became Ottoman vassals afterwards.