These tribes should have stayed under Turkish control. Liberating them was a mistake on our part

These tribes should have stayed under Turkish control. Liberating them was a mistake on our part.

Attached: b99fc7e1fac9339ee41a287c68b1a802.jpg (1280x1160, 166.51K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman-Habsburg_wars
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

But you didn't liberate them. We did

You didn't even exist back then.

>ooga booga

I thought you were busy attacking your neighbouring tribe for believing in different deity?

Take k*rds give us Macedonia and Western Thrace back.

This but replace the Balkans with the M*ddle E*st

Бaceд eнд peдпиллeд.

Uhhh...
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman-Habsburg_wars

>tribes

Attached: Screenshot_20200828_160901.jpg (1080x1277, 327.42K)

At least you wouldn't be a NEEt

coping turkish rape babies
Ugh...

Attached: 0jjRMEVMrhw.jpg (1077x1062, 204.4K)

Nor did modern russia

"Macedonians" have no history

Attached: 1598222078521.jpg (810x829, 43.8K)

kek that's like me saying Romania is the heir to Rome

WE WUZ

We liberated ourselves and no one asked you what you think about it, you little shit niggers.

>lithuania
based

>We liberated ourselves
try liberating yourself when the Ottomans are not busy getting raped by the Empire

When the tides of war finally turned around in the 17th century, the Habsburg went for peace instead of taking advantage of finally having military superiority over the Turks. Habsburgs didn't a shit, it's a wonder they even annexed Bosnia. They just had Croatia act as frontier land and that's it. Ands Slavs were in the ranks of that Empire to begin with. Didn't have shit to do with the Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek uprisings.

The Habsburgs already had a very large domain to control, and on top of that the entire Roman Emprie.
I can't judge them for not knocking at their doorsteps at the sublime porte. But even then, the efforts of the Roman Empire against the Turks would set the stage for their eventual decline and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the first world war.

The Holy roman empire, you mean. Need to keep these differences in check.
The western roman empire, the eastern roman empire (the byzantines), and the HRE.

Holy Roman Empire and Roman Empire are synonymous

Not even close. The Western Roman empire which collapsed in 476 AD, the Eastern Roman empire which ceased to exist in 1453, and the Holy Roman Empire which was spearheaded by Charlemagne from 800 AD onwards all the way until the Napoleonic wars. They're not synonymous at all.

Yes, they are three different things.
But Roman Empire is still synonymous with Holy Roman Empire

>when you meet russians

Attached: Üzgün_tın.jpg (447x275, 39.74K)

No. It's historically inaccurate to just say "Roman Empire", unless the context specifically dictates that you're talking about the Western Roman Empire, which most people think about when they hear "Roman Empire". You're being dishonest.

It's not historically inaccurate since what you say is the Holy Roman Empire was simply called Roman Empire.
The only historical inaccuracies lies in your butthurt at this fact.
>which most people think about when they hear "Roman Empire".
Well, the fact that most people are unintelligent wouldn't substract from the fact that the two terms are synonymous.

We lost some land because of the war after the failed Vienna siege but most of balkans were lost after the 1877 Russo-Turkish war. In the balkan wars, new balkan states kicked our ass again and we lost everything except for eastern thrace

It's good practice and a neccessity to be accurate in your wording when speaking about history today. Saying "roman empire" when you mean the HRE is disingenuous and confusing.

You won’t feel very lonely now that Belarus is about to join the club of countries cucked to death for not dancing to Mama Russiya’s tune.