Caliph Harun Al Rashid and Constantinople

at the time of the Ottomans Constantinople was a country in a city, while at the time of Harun in the 7th/8th centurey it was just a capital of a big empire, I think if most of the empire came under other powers the capital wont have enough army personnel to defend it.

it wouldve been easier to take it if the main army was destroyed earlier.

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon I never thought about bashing the Turks indirectly, but thanks for pointing that out I never thought about it. (SOrry to ze Turks ) But I am talking about Constantinople itself and what it had become after the 2nd century. It has become so corrupted and it has torn itself from its old Roman values. It is just a shadow of its former glory, a infestation that has to be wiped out from the world. ALthough it was finally conquered in the 15th century it was already a place of death and decay to its fullest. But destroying it earlier when it boasted a high population would have eradicated all the filth and evil that protruded from its walls. Only because of its luck, its protection geographically, and a few "good kings" did it manage to breath one more breath of air. The Persians and/or the Arabs should have destroyed them. It is a pity that they have failed

Constantinople was "a place of death and decay to its fullest"?  What nonsense is this?  Constantinople was the capital of the most powerfull empire of the middle ages.  Actually, your entire statement I've quoted is false.  Why are you advocating the destruction of the citizens of Constantinople and what makes you think that they were full of "filth and evil"?  Constantinople was part of a great empire that, if it still existed, would make the world today a better place.  The destruction of Constantinople that occured in 1453 ruined the city.  We today should not forget the terrible crime that was committed against the citizens of that city in 1453.  Advocating their destruction is disrespectful to them.

As far as the Arabs being able to conquer Constantinople, if they could have they would have.  Why would they turn down all the wealth and plunder they could have taken by conquering the city in exchange for a mediocre tribute?  Byzantium could have dealt with them easily enough, it was simply more convenient for them to buy them off while dealing with other issues though.

But they did, at least at certain times. Witness the so-called Silver Age of Byzantium, the period between Basil II Bulgaroctonus and Alexius Comnenus (10th to 12th centuries), when the Roman (Byzantine Empire) did much to reconquer former territories and recapture some of its former glory. It took centuries of constant attacks on several fronts by Turks in Anatolia, Normans in Italy and the Mediterranean, and Bulgars in the Balkans, followed by a catastrophic act of treachery from former allies, the western crusaders, for the decline of the Byzantine Empire to become irreversible. I challenge you to find another empire that has had to deal with so many challenges and survived for so long.

"Racist, self-serving byzantines"?  What sort of anti-byzantine propaganda is this?  The Byzantine Empire was a very tolerant multi-cultural empire.  I've never heard anyone accuse them of being racists or losing their "sense of hard work."  If the Turks were so understanding of other religions as you say, then why did they have the habit of converting the sacred buildings of other religions into mosques?  I'll admit that Constantinople was in rough shape in 1453, compared to what it used to be.  However, the city was certainly not a "shadow of its former self" in the 2nd century.  You seem to be very biased against the East Roman Empire for some reason.

There is no State or Empire in human history without any kind of discrimination until WWII.

An erroneous act is not justified on the grounds that someone else is guilty of an equal erroneous act nor it makes it less erroneous. Your reply is a bold Red Herring.

As i have said and as Romios pointed out,it was not a paradise but the Byzantines were far more tolerant than the Latins .