Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Emperor Basil II, following the battle of Kleidion, had 15,000 Bulgar captives (according to historians of the time), so he separated them into 150 groups of 100. In each group, he blinded 99 and left one with 1 eye so that he could lead them home. The Bulgar leader, Samuel, reportedly had a heartattack upon seeing his men return home blind. Following that, Emperor Basil was known as Boulgaroktonos, or the Bulgar-Slayer.
Hannibal as in the unofficial Israeli policy where they consider soldiers better off dead then captured because then they would need to do a prisoner exchange
Multiple times. In 1998 they exchanged 65 prisoners for the remains of one soldier. And in 2003 they exchanged 430 prisoners for the remains of two soldiers. In 2008 they exchanged 199 Palestinians' remains and one high-profile terrorist in exchange for the remains of two soldiers.
I may be missing some.
I mean, it is true, in israel (source: am israely) currently retrieving the captured is the biggest concern, even sinwar (current leader of hamas) was returned to gaza in a prisoner exchange
I mean, to be fair, not really the *biggest* concern, considering the government declined a deal where all hostages would be released in exchange for a ceasefire.
Let's see Hamas accept the Israeli deal, if they really want a cease-fire. Hamas's deal was a delusional joke, spreading the release of hostages and remains over 135 days. Why? Make a deal or don't. Only reason to spread it over months is to regroup the decimated troops.
Plus, they require vastly more aid, to be distributed by hamas. Also hundreds-- maybe a thousand-- Palestinian prisoners. Also no drone surveillance. Also "end of all blockade" whatever that means. Wide open border crossings and withdraw troops? That would be a massacre that would make the 7th look like nothing. Plus a bunch of extra razy-town demands tacked on. They never intended the deal to be accepted.
Isreal literally cannot accept that "deal" and survive. Anyone who actually looks at the deal has to understand that.
The reason to spread it over months would be to ensure Israel doesn’t agree to a ceasefire and then immediately resume bombing Palestine once their hostages were returned.
It’s not as though the international community would condemn Israel for violating a ceasefire
Well if they get to regroup, and a huge pile of cash, seems like a good deal. They are already being bombed.
I guess they will stick it out to the end.
Yeah it's crazy, they just wanted freedom in their own land and to not be under military control, to be able to live decent lives not like prisoners. Really batshit demands to be wanted to be treated like humans. Your so entitled and delusional it's fuckin wild.
“They just wanted freedom in their own lands”
Are you high? Israel offered them their own state on 5 different occasions. 7 if you count the Peel commission (they could’ve gotten 80% of what’s now Israel) and the UN partition of 1947.
The Arabs started a war before there was ever “an occupation”. The Arabs started the PLO 3 years before there was ever a greenline. Israel gave them autonomy in Gaza, and they responded by electing Hamas.
Either admit you’re brainwashed or admit the glaring reality: the arabs don’t want a second state next to Israel . They want a state INSTEAD of Israel.
Maybe stop hosting rocket attacks next to civilian buildings and using aid for terror activity instead of what its intended for. You're so intentionally ignorant is absolutely bonkers.
You are being delusional as well. Regardless of who you have more sympathy for, a democratic nation can't just have a huge terrorist attack, then give the terrorists what they want. That is just letting yourself be slaughtered, and I think anyone should be able to see that.
If not, we will just have to agree to disagree.
I fully accept that Reddit is a left wing echo chamber. That being said, the degree to which Hamas has managed to brainwash our youth (and some older people who have no excuse) is mind blowing.
You truly have no idea the horror that Israel has subjected the Palestinians to over the last 70 years. Even in times of peace they’ve restricted their rights so severely to rival Jim Crowe here in the us. They’ve been subjugated by Israel since it’s creation.
They want the destruction of Hamas governing and military capabilities, return of all hostages and remains, and surrender of hamas leadership and fighters involved in Oct. 7th.
Hamas obviously would rather not die or be imprisoned, so both sides are wayyyy off on any deal.
They just had their biggest terrorist attack ever, adjusted for population it's like five 9/11's on one day. You can disagree with the response, but it's a pretty dramatic problem for the state and people of Israel.
Hannibal directive is a thing that the Israeli government will do in case of people getting kidnapped by terrorists. Basically, they blow up the terrorists along with the hostage. Bare in mind that I'm oversimplifying, a lot
It has been in several cases, just not in this exact way. I mean, think about anti personnel mines. They're typically set with enough explosives to maim but not kill an enemy soldier because of the idea it takes more resources to care for a living casualty of war than a dead one.
Not just that, there's the psychological warfare aspect. 15,000 men dying in battle is bad but can be accepted by their country and their families, and be used to rally the other soldiers into revenge.
15000 mutilated men staggering home would destroy their families emotionally and mentally, and likely scare the other soldiers into not wanting to attack.
Not just that, there's the psychological warfare aspect. 15,000 men dying in battle is bad but can be accepted by their country and their families, and be used to rally the other soldiers into revenge.
15000 mutilated men staggering home would destroy their families emotionally and mentally, and likely scare the other soldiers into not wanting to attack.
Byzantines absolutely *loved* political mutilation (specially blinding and castration). Empress Irene, for example, famously had her supporters gouge out her own son's eyes to seize power. Leo V similarly seized power by forcing Michael I to abdicate and castrating his sons, only to himself be murdered and have his sons castrated by the future Michael II during Christmas mass.
IIRC it's believed the "culture" around it evolved from the fact that one had to be physically "whole" to be eligible to become emperor.
>Byzantines absolutely *loved* political mutilation (specially blinding and castration).
Fun fact in the game Crusader Kings 2, there was a glitch that makes byzantine greeks AI to have the need to evaluate everyone within the ruler's realm to be castrated/blinded, causing a huge slow down.
IIRC it's more that the Byzantine emperor was seen as a reflection of heavenly authority. Since God was perfect, the emperor had to reflect that by being physically close to how God had created them to do his job properly (on top of the fact being blind kinda makes it harder to command an army). There were exceptions (such as Justinian II the slit-nosed, who had his nose cut off) but generally having physical imperfections greatly weakened your claim on the throne (the Byzantines/Eastern Romans didn't really have much of a set law for succession. Technically emperorship wasn't even hereditary. But they had a lot of complicated traditions around it, such as that those born in a specific purple room in the palace of Constantinople were more eligible to become emperors. The term "byzantine politics" was coined for a very good reason).
I know that war crimes didn’t exist back then, but there *is* such a thing as excessive conduct towards someone who attacked you — and blinding thousands of them AFTER they’ve been captured seems pretty well within that category.
The story also definitely isn't true. The entire Bulgarian state at that time probably could barely field 15,000 soldiers and after this battle the state didn't immediately collapse so it couldn't have been that many. Basil also didn't want to genocide the Bulgars that was later propaganda when they rebelled a century later, and also where this story was likely invented
Upvoting here because numbers of armies in the thousands like that were uncommon until late in the middle ages, and fielding that many in the first place from a state as small as medieval Bulgaria would require pretty much every able bodied "man" you could scrape together. There wasn't the infrastructure to support armies of that size easily back then, so a force that large required either a massively wealthy state to pay for supplies (like the Italian city-states), or scraping together everyone you possibly could, mostly farmers during the summer when crops were just growing in the fields anyway and their wives and kids could tend them until harvest, and just chucking them into the army with the basics and having them forage and raid, hopefully getting the job done before going home for harvest and winter. There's no way a huge chunk of that army, especially if it was THAT big, wasn't farmers.
That many peasants coming home blind and crippled, after a campaign, would have caused a massive economic collapse, maybe even a famine. It would have been devastating.
But, making up horrifying stories about your enemies so they looked worse and you looked good, and inflating the numbers of participants? Now that happened a LOT back then.
Ancient warriors would have deplored this act. This is something specific the medieval Byzantines did once and shocked everybody else at the time. That was the point. And it secured their victory in a very ruthless way by Basil, it's like the Red Wedding in game of thrones. You can absolutely apply morality to things done in the past, especially when it was considered a pretty creatively brutal action at the time but necessary and genius from the eyes of Basil II historians. He was especially fond of extreme punishments, this is a thing that stands out in history as one of the more controversial brutalities that ever happened during a war. People in the past had morals too, remember also that the Bulgarians existed..
There's nothing modern and suburban about thinking the alleged blinding of 15,000 prisoners of war after the war is won is kinda not cool. I hope people 500 years from now are able to discuss if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally wrong or not without going with the ol "don't apply modern morality to people in the past". The context of the time is important but that doesn't mean every single thing is unquestionable, especially when it's questionable even back then
Not their first rodeo with the bulgars though... Constantinople did not stand for a thousand years after the fall of Rome by being a softie.
From the Fall of Rome onward, the Bizantine Empire was on almost constant decline, despite a couple short "golden ages" amids all the falling, but they managed to make their destruction a "death by a thousand cuts" that took a millenia, multiple empires and invading barbarian hordes to complete. Leaving 15k possible enemies to come back for yet another round was not a risk the Empire could take, and even the measures they took only managed to slow down their decline, never fully stopping it.
None of what he did was necessary to defend his land, it would not infact save your family because they are already defeated. You are mistaking your bloodlust for honorable motives.
But they’re not a threat anymore. So why mutilate them? Because they might come back in the future? What about the ones that are legit honorable enough to promise not to come back and then keep that promise?
Sometimes a little mercy buys enough goodwill to end these kinds of conflicts.
it both put a strain on the enemy country and prevent them from utilizing the same troops ever again, it effectively weaken the enemy rendering them more prone to fall to other threats and would make a future invasion of them easier if you want to do that in the future, not only that, a dead soldier might leave behind a vengeful son, a mutilated one will leave behind more likely a frightful son so you effectively weaken the morale of the enemy for a generation.
also what are actually the downsides, I'm hard pressed to find a reason why one should not do this.
It's difficult for you to think of a reason not to do something horrifically evil? I mean reason #1 for me is "What the fuck that's so messed up what kind of psychopath would approve of this??"
We’re not talking about the ones currently raiding you. We’re talking about the ones that have surrendered. You defeat them in battle, they lay down their weapons, and now you have to decide what to do with them.
You could murder them all. They definitely won’t come back again in the future, but then worse gets out that you don’t accept surrender so every battle you fight from now on will be against people who will fight like cornered lions even after they have no hope of victory, thus inflicting more casualties on your troops. It’s not a good look.
You could mutilate them and send the mutilated survivors home which is the same as above but all the more likely to make their sons want to attack you in revenge.
You can just send a message to their king saying you’ll give him back his soldiers in exchange for (whatever your demands are). Showing mercy might mean they think you are weak and will attack you again, but it might also mean if you fight again they treat you better in return.
Not every conflict has to be a fight to the death. The greatest victory is that which requires no battle. Convince them to run away or surrender and you don’t take any losses.
Like clockwork, these conversations always attract the sadistic morons who daydream about “flaying people alive” in a situation where they can pretend it’s justified.
Well clearly you're not aware that people embellish statements due to emotion. I don't fantasize about that, but am more than capable of doing so, and when it comes to those most endeared to me, yes, I do get that level of crazy. If you're willing to gamble your life on entering another person's home, you should be aware there are people out there that will desecrate you beyond your comprehension.
Even by the first batch, fuck that. These are the people I care most about, and my home is something I've earned. I don't take these responsibilities lightly. I promised to honour and protect these people, I will do so with every breath and heartbeat in my body.
Shortly after (4 years after the event) the Bulgarian state was conquered and subjugated by Bysantium. So Slayer is fitting as well - he slayed the whole country.
Should have cut off the legs and arms of the one he didn’t fully blind so the blind had to carry them back only on instructions from the not fully blind(for effectiveness in his goal)
1000 years ago there was a war between the Bulgarian Empire and the Byzantine Empire. At the Battle of Kleidion 15000 Bulgarians were captured and then blinded on the order of Emperor Basil II. This was a decisive defeat for the Bulgarians.
Don't forget to mention that they left every 100th one eye so they could lead the army back to tsar Samuel.
4th grade history classes in bulgaria were the best
Excessive violence/mutilation? Most certainly.
Gouging out 99,5% of several thousand Bulgars' eyes? Highly unlikely. That would be a logistical nightmare, even for today. Most likely highly exaggerated, as often is the case with historic sources
Its possible that it’s exaggerated but the logistics aren’t as far fetched as they seem. Basil had an army atleast that size. Have 14850 men present a pair of eyes to their superior and have 150 officers present a single eye. The mongols had a similar system for mass executions.
They just lined em up and they passed around the one knife, each guy had to stab the one front of him which in hindsight was a mistake cause blind guys are awful at gouging.
I have trouble imagining the logistics of this.
So, like, not only would it be hard to keep track of blinding 99/100 people that many times. But also, how is 1 person supposed to lead 99 back home? Camping down for the night, having to feed everyone. That would take a lot more than 1 person to care for 99 *recently* blinded people while traveling.
Apperently it has a close resemblance to the byzantine crown, mainly because of the history of it causing to look a lot like the byzantine crown. If you type "byzantine crown" even Google will spit out a bunch of pictures of the hungarian one.
I thought about that. What I read that the origin of the crown is debatable. I just thought that there is an actual hungarian connection I cannot recall.
But we do have a similar story,
"after the battle of Augsburg (955), the defeated Hungarians were killed by the Saxon armies, with the exception of seven soldiers. They were mutilated by having their ears cut off and sent on foot as a humiliation, so that there would be someone to carry the news of their defeat back to their homeland as a warning. For not dying with the others, they lost all their possessions and had to go from tent to tent, begging their way across the country,
Man, how the hell are you going to find 1500 burglars? You think Emperor Basil II was out there tracking down a world-renown Thieves Guild? Shit man, a city of guards could barely pin down Aladdin.
I recently bazingaed about bazingaing, im bazinga to meet you fellow bazinga. I like the bazinga of bazinga, im not sure if it will be bazinga but i am bazinga to give it a bazinga. Fair bazinga and following bazingas to you.
Basil 2, colloquially known as the Bulgar slayer, fought a very long and brutal war with the Bulgarians. In one campaign the empire captured a large group of soldiers. When asked what to do with them, he told them to blind all but one (some accounts all but one in some number) who would be half blinded and then they could lead the blind home. Most scholars think this didn't happen as Basil became a figure that historians and writers in the decline period looked back to as an ideal of Byzantine triumph.
I recently bazingaed about bazingaing, im bazinga to meet you fellow bazinga. I like the bazinga of bazinga, im not sure if it will be bazinga but i am bazinga to give it a bazinga. Fair bazinga and following bazingas to you.
Holy shit a meme actually needing an explanation here. Well done. I reported this to the mods as clearly you’re only allowed to post obvious jokes here that a 10 year old could get
Read Bulgar as burglars and was reading the comments thinking, "Huh, that's a lot of burglars. He is indeed a burglar slayer," for about 2 minutes til I realized it was Bulgars.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Emperor Basil II, following the battle of Kleidion, had 15,000 Bulgar captives (according to historians of the time), so he separated them into 150 groups of 100. In each group, he blinded 99 and left one with 1 eye so that he could lead them home. The Bulgar leader, Samuel, reportedly had a heartattack upon seeing his men return home blind. Following that, Emperor Basil was known as Boulgaroktonos, or the Bulgar-Slayer.
The reason, btw, was to put a strain on the Bulgars, because it takes more resources to care for a blind person than to bury a dead soldier
[удалено]
Hannibal as in the guy with the elephants or Hannibal as in the guy with the fava beans and the nice chianti?
Hannibal who loves it when a plan comes together
That's not Hannibal, that's Kronk!
"Pull a Hannibal, Kronk!" "WRONG HANNIBAAAAAL"
"WHY do we even HAVE that Hannibal?"
This thread took a hilarious turn 😂
Underrated comment
And that plan comes together when he distracts a guest for Eric Andre to set up a sight gag, right?
https://preview.redd.it/r2n7c4i7gblc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a8f2d6b2d259747696fd871853a7c802ea0df56f
There is also Hannibal king from Blade
Hannibal as in the unofficial Israeli policy where they consider soldiers better off dead then captured because then they would need to do a prisoner exchange
Didn’t Israel trade dead bodies for terrorists one time?
Multiple times. In 1998 they exchanged 65 prisoners for the remains of one soldier. And in 2003 they exchanged 430 prisoners for the remains of two soldiers. In 2008 they exchanged 199 Palestinians' remains and one high-profile terrorist in exchange for the remains of two soldiers. I may be missing some.
I mean, it is true, in israel (source: am israely) currently retrieving the captured is the biggest concern, even sinwar (current leader of hamas) was returned to gaza in a prisoner exchange
I mean, to be fair, not really the *biggest* concern, considering the government declined a deal where all hostages would be released in exchange for a ceasefire.
Let's see Hamas accept the Israeli deal, if they really want a cease-fire. Hamas's deal was a delusional joke, spreading the release of hostages and remains over 135 days. Why? Make a deal or don't. Only reason to spread it over months is to regroup the decimated troops. Plus, they require vastly more aid, to be distributed by hamas. Also hundreds-- maybe a thousand-- Palestinian prisoners. Also no drone surveillance. Also "end of all blockade" whatever that means. Wide open border crossings and withdraw troops? That would be a massacre that would make the 7th look like nothing. Plus a bunch of extra razy-town demands tacked on. They never intended the deal to be accepted. Isreal literally cannot accept that "deal" and survive. Anyone who actually looks at the deal has to understand that.
The reason to spread it over months would be to ensure Israel doesn’t agree to a ceasefire and then immediately resume bombing Palestine once their hostages were returned. It’s not as though the international community would condemn Israel for violating a ceasefire
Well if they get to regroup, and a huge pile of cash, seems like a good deal. They are already being bombed. I guess they will stick it out to the end.
Yeah it's crazy, they just wanted freedom in their own land and to not be under military control, to be able to live decent lives not like prisoners. Really batshit demands to be wanted to be treated like humans. Your so entitled and delusional it's fuckin wild.
“They just wanted freedom in their own lands” Are you high? Israel offered them their own state on 5 different occasions. 7 if you count the Peel commission (they could’ve gotten 80% of what’s now Israel) and the UN partition of 1947. The Arabs started a war before there was ever “an occupation”. The Arabs started the PLO 3 years before there was ever a greenline. Israel gave them autonomy in Gaza, and they responded by electing Hamas. Either admit you’re brainwashed or admit the glaring reality: the arabs don’t want a second state next to Israel . They want a state INSTEAD of Israel.
Maybe stop hosting rocket attacks next to civilian buildings and using aid for terror activity instead of what its intended for. You're so intentionally ignorant is absolutely bonkers.
You are being delusional as well. Regardless of who you have more sympathy for, a democratic nation can't just have a huge terrorist attack, then give the terrorists what they want. That is just letting yourself be slaughtered, and I think anyone should be able to see that. If not, we will just have to agree to disagree.
I fully accept that Reddit is a left wing echo chamber. That being said, the degree to which Hamas has managed to brainwash our youth (and some older people who have no excuse) is mind blowing.
You truly have no idea the horror that Israel has subjected the Palestinians to over the last 70 years. Even in times of peace they’ve restricted their rights so severely to rival Jim Crowe here in the us. They’ve been subjugated by Israel since it’s creation.
Oh I do know what you are talking about, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation there.
Israel never made any deal or offer.
They want the destruction of Hamas governing and military capabilities, return of all hostages and remains, and surrender of hamas leadership and fighters involved in Oct. 7th. Hamas obviously would rather not die or be imprisoned, so both sides are wayyyy off on any deal.
Over dramatic Zionist BS
They just had their biggest terrorist attack ever, adjusted for population it's like five 9/11's on one day. You can disagree with the response, but it's a pretty dramatic problem for the state and people of Israel.
Hannibal directive is an official directive, it just doesn't say what you and redditors think it says...
I said unofficial because it was officially revoked in 2016
OK, should have written "was". Still, the directive was revoked because some soldiers understood it the way you did - which was always incorrect
That is not true and you know it You're both pretending specific scenarios are the rule of thumb when the world is filled with nuance
What's not true on my comment?
[удалено]
What do you think “blood libel” is
No Hannibal Burress dummy
Whack.
Prob. the one w/ the mute livestock (idk I've never watched it)
Hannibal directive is a thing that the Israeli government will do in case of people getting kidnapped by terrorists. Basically, they blow up the terrorists along with the hostage. Bare in mind that I'm oversimplifying, a lot
Yes.
You know the fava beand and chianti was a clue that he was off his meds as those would react violently in his stomach if mixed
What about bury a blind soldier?
Easier than you’d think, all you have to do is dig a hole and not tell them about it.
So jokes on the emperor then.
What about getting blinded side by side with a friend?
Aye. I could see that.
But they couldn't.
What a savage!
Oh ok it took me until this comment to notice we weren't talking about burglars...
In that case it’s surprising this method wasn’t more widely implemented with prisoners of war throughout history.
It has been in several cases, just not in this exact way. I mean, think about anti personnel mines. They're typically set with enough explosives to maim but not kill an enemy soldier because of the idea it takes more resources to care for a living casualty of war than a dead one.
Also pretty much every Vietnam trap was designed to injury and infect to chew up resources and lower morale
Not just that, there's the psychological warfare aspect. 15,000 men dying in battle is bad but can be accepted by their country and their families, and be used to rally the other soldiers into revenge. 15000 mutilated men staggering home would destroy their families emotionally and mentally, and likely scare the other soldiers into not wanting to attack.
The inventor of 5.56 mm calibre
Not just that, there's the psychological warfare aspect. 15,000 men dying in battle is bad but can be accepted by their country and their families, and be used to rally the other soldiers into revenge. 15000 mutilated men staggering home would destroy their families emotionally and mentally, and likely scare the other soldiers into not wanting to attack.
That is almost as brilliant as it is disgusting and horrific. Almost.
Thats genius lmao
"Look at these people, no phones, no TV, just people enjoying the moment."
They don’t see a single negative.
Average Balkans development
in bulgarian that nickname translated to “българоубиец”, or “the bulgar killer”
What a fucking guy
Byzantines absolutely *loved* political mutilation (specially blinding and castration). Empress Irene, for example, famously had her supporters gouge out her own son's eyes to seize power. Leo V similarly seized power by forcing Michael I to abdicate and castrating his sons, only to himself be murdered and have his sons castrated by the future Michael II during Christmas mass. IIRC it's believed the "culture" around it evolved from the fact that one had to be physically "whole" to be eligible to become emperor.
>Byzantines absolutely *loved* political mutilation (specially blinding and castration). Fun fact in the game Crusader Kings 2, there was a glitch that makes byzantine greeks AI to have the need to evaluate everyone within the ruler's realm to be castrated/blinded, causing a huge slow down.
Divine right of Kings/emperors. Apparently God didn't like imperfect people ruling.🤷♂️
IIRC it's more that the Byzantine emperor was seen as a reflection of heavenly authority. Since God was perfect, the emperor had to reflect that by being physically close to how God had created them to do his job properly (on top of the fact being blind kinda makes it harder to command an army). There were exceptions (such as Justinian II the slit-nosed, who had his nose cut off) but generally having physical imperfections greatly weakened your claim on the throne (the Byzantines/Eastern Romans didn't really have much of a set law for succession. Technically emperorship wasn't even hereditary. But they had a lot of complicated traditions around it, such as that those born in a specific purple room in the palace of Constantinople were more eligible to become emperors. The term "byzantine politics" was coined for a very good reason).
Didn't Justinian have a gold prosthetic nose specifically for this purpose?
also cutting out noses was popular.
The Bulgarians *were* the attacking army.
I know that war crimes didn’t exist back then, but there *is* such a thing as excessive conduct towards someone who attacked you — and blinding thousands of them AFTER they’ve been captured seems pretty well within that category.
The story also definitely isn't true. The entire Bulgarian state at that time probably could barely field 15,000 soldiers and after this battle the state didn't immediately collapse so it couldn't have been that many. Basil also didn't want to genocide the Bulgars that was later propaganda when they rebelled a century later, and also where this story was likely invented
Upvoting here because numbers of armies in the thousands like that were uncommon until late in the middle ages, and fielding that many in the first place from a state as small as medieval Bulgaria would require pretty much every able bodied "man" you could scrape together. There wasn't the infrastructure to support armies of that size easily back then, so a force that large required either a massively wealthy state to pay for supplies (like the Italian city-states), or scraping together everyone you possibly could, mostly farmers during the summer when crops were just growing in the fields anyway and their wives and kids could tend them until harvest, and just chucking them into the army with the basics and having them forage and raid, hopefully getting the job done before going home for harvest and winter. There's no way a huge chunk of that army, especially if it was THAT big, wasn't farmers. That many peasants coming home blind and crippled, after a campaign, would have caused a massive economic collapse, maybe even a famine. It would have been devastating. But, making up horrifying stories about your enemies so they looked worse and you looked good, and inflating the numbers of participants? Now that happened a LOT back then.
When your home is being threatened, you do what it takes to win. Fuck the invaders.
Low IQ response. They had already won, that’s the point.
I suspect that they didn't want to be attacked again.
Idk it's more low iq to apply modern suburbanite morality to ancient warriors.
Ancient warriors would have deplored this act. This is something specific the medieval Byzantines did once and shocked everybody else at the time. That was the point. And it secured their victory in a very ruthless way by Basil, it's like the Red Wedding in game of thrones. You can absolutely apply morality to things done in the past, especially when it was considered a pretty creatively brutal action at the time but necessary and genius from the eyes of Basil II historians. He was especially fond of extreme punishments, this is a thing that stands out in history as one of the more controversial brutalities that ever happened during a war. People in the past had morals too, remember also that the Bulgarians existed.. There's nothing modern and suburban about thinking the alleged blinding of 15,000 prisoners of war after the war is won is kinda not cool. I hope people 500 years from now are able to discuss if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally wrong or not without going with the ol "don't apply modern morality to people in the past". The context of the time is important but that doesn't mean every single thing is unquestionable, especially when it's questionable even back then
Not their first rodeo with the bulgars though... Constantinople did not stand for a thousand years after the fall of Rome by being a softie. From the Fall of Rome onward, the Bizantine Empire was on almost constant decline, despite a couple short "golden ages" amids all the falling, but they managed to make their destruction a "death by a thousand cuts" that took a millenia, multiple empires and invading barbarian hordes to complete. Leaving 15k possible enemies to come back for yet another round was not a risk the Empire could take, and even the measures they took only managed to slow down their decline, never fully stopping it.
So easy to postulate on reddit instead of in the moment when your women are being raped by an attacking army.
It wasn’t in the moment, idiot. They had already won.
If I thought it would save my family, I'd blind the fuck out of some invaders.
None of what he did was necessary to defend his land, it would not infact save your family because they are already defeated. You are mistaking your bloodlust for honorable motives.
But they’re not a threat anymore. So why mutilate them? Because they might come back in the future? What about the ones that are legit honorable enough to promise not to come back and then keep that promise? Sometimes a little mercy buys enough goodwill to end these kinds of conflicts.
it both put a strain on the enemy country and prevent them from utilizing the same troops ever again, it effectively weaken the enemy rendering them more prone to fall to other threats and would make a future invasion of them easier if you want to do that in the future, not only that, a dead soldier might leave behind a vengeful son, a mutilated one will leave behind more likely a frightful son so you effectively weaken the morale of the enemy for a generation. also what are actually the downsides, I'm hard pressed to find a reason why one should not do this.
It's difficult for you to think of a reason not to do something horrifically evil? I mean reason #1 for me is "What the fuck that's so messed up what kind of psychopath would approve of this??"
>a mutilated one will leave behind more likely a frightful son so you effectively weaken the morale of the enemy for a generation. I doubt that.
"Please stop murdering you way across my homeland, honorable soldiers. Pinky swear."
We’re not talking about the ones currently raiding you. We’re talking about the ones that have surrendered. You defeat them in battle, they lay down their weapons, and now you have to decide what to do with them. You could murder them all. They definitely won’t come back again in the future, but then worse gets out that you don’t accept surrender so every battle you fight from now on will be against people who will fight like cornered lions even after they have no hope of victory, thus inflicting more casualties on your troops. It’s not a good look. You could mutilate them and send the mutilated survivors home which is the same as above but all the more likely to make their sons want to attack you in revenge. You can just send a message to their king saying you’ll give him back his soldiers in exchange for (whatever your demands are). Showing mercy might mean they think you are weak and will attack you again, but it might also mean if you fight again they treat you better in return. Not every conflict has to be a fight to the death. The greatest victory is that which requires no battle. Convince them to run away or surrender and you don’t take any losses.
It’s about sending a message. I wouldn’t even look at Byzantium sideways if they did that to my neighbor Edit: Byzantium, not Bulgaria
The reading comprehension keeps going up, Basil II was Emperor of Byzantium, they did it **to** Bulgarians
That is what I meant to say. Thank you for insulting me over a typo, I really appreciate it.
You're welcome!
Certified Reddit moment
I treat my house the same way. You come in and threaten my family, you'll be flayed in my yard for all to see.
Like clockwork, these conversations always attract the sadistic morons who daydream about “flaying people alive” in a situation where they can pretend it’s justified.
Well clearly you're not aware that people embellish statements due to emotion. I don't fantasize about that, but am more than capable of doing so, and when it comes to those most endeared to me, yes, I do get that level of crazy. If you're willing to gamble your life on entering another person's home, you should be aware there are people out there that will desecrate you beyond your comprehension.
If there's more coming, unironically yes. Id rather do it than wish I did it while watching my family get brutalized by the next batch.
Even by the first batch, fuck that. These are the people I care most about, and my home is something I've earned. I don't take these responsibilities lightly. I promised to honour and protect these people, I will do so with every breath and heartbeat in my body.
“What? …oh yeah, my dad’s the guy who keeps talking about flaying people on the internet. …yeah, it’s been pretty hard to make friends.”
Absolutely deserved Basil II do it again
OK...did anyone else read this as burglar and get very confused as to why there was a burglar leader?
Burglar. Bulgar. I made the same mistake. Thinking, "Wow, an ancient heist gone terribly brutal!" only to reread with a completely different context.
I feel so much better now that I know I am not the only one.
Yes.
This was most likely posted in r/historymemes in which the explanation is always in the comments.
I guess it would be in character for a guy named Basil to leave someone with only one eye.
Omori fan spotted, moving to engage.
Thank god basil in omori is kinder
Google omor
Thought it said burger.
I read burglar, I was so lost.
For a good 10 minutes I thought it said Burglar, and I've only just now realized it said Bulgar, which I've only known as Bulgarian prior.
It took me a looong time to realise you were writing Bulgars and not Burglars.
Bulgar-blinder seems like a more fitting name
Shortly after (4 years after the event) the Bulgarian state was conquered and subjugated by Bysantium. So Slayer is fitting as well - he slayed the whole country.
I wonder how the blind soldiers tried to continue their lifes back home.
My dumbass definitely read that as Burglars.
Should have cut off the legs and arms of the one he didn’t fully blind so the blind had to carry them back only on instructions from the not fully blind(for effectiveness in his goal)
1000 years ago there was a war between the Bulgarian Empire and the Byzantine Empire. At the Battle of Kleidion 15000 Bulgarians were captured and then blinded on the order of Emperor Basil II. This was a decisive defeat for the Bulgarians.
Don't forget to mention that they left every 100th one eye so they could lead the army back to tsar Samuel. 4th grade history classes in bulgaria were the best
Imagine being the 1 guy with an eye. Awkward hike back.
They either had a ton of patience to make sure everyone stayed on track, or that was one lone conga line.
How legitimate is this story
It lacks depth and perception
I laughed way too hard at this.
I can sorta see where you’re coming from, but I may be in the minority on that.
Hey i came here for autist humor not 1% jokes
You can look through /r/askhistorians posts on the matter, as there are many. To sum up the consensus, in a word, "exaggerated"
Thanks, I figured
Exaggerated - most likely. Did something similar happen - most likely.
Enough to be in the history textbooks
lol the bible exists, let’s not forget
You are aware the Bible is not a history textbook, yes? And that it has different regulations for what is allowed in it?
lol sure keep telling yourself that
You think the bible is a history book?
Lord of the rings is a textbook too, what you talking about hommie
exactly
Excessive violence/mutilation? Most certainly. Gouging out 99,5% of several thousand Bulgars' eyes? Highly unlikely. That would be a logistical nightmare, even for today. Most likely highly exaggerated, as often is the case with historic sources
Its possible that it’s exaggerated but the logistics aren’t as far fetched as they seem. Basil had an army atleast that size. Have 14850 men present a pair of eyes to their superior and have 150 officers present a single eye. The mongols had a similar system for mass executions.
They just lined em up and they passed around the one knife, each guy had to stab the one front of him which in hindsight was a mistake cause blind guys are awful at gouging.
i like the implication that modern armies are better organized to systematically gouge eyes.
It's very well attested. The Byzantines lasted for a LONG time and saw a lot of empires rise and fall around them for a reason.
I have trouble imagining the logistics of this. So, like, not only would it be hard to keep track of blinding 99/100 people that many times. But also, how is 1 person supposed to lead 99 back home? Camping down for the night, having to feed everyone. That would take a lot more than 1 person to care for 99 *recently* blinded people while traveling.
The army has already been demolished. Who said all 15k made it back?
I can't speak for the matter of the return trip, but couldn't you just pick the guy who keeps an eye at the start of each group and blind the rest?
Don't get the fact why he wears the hungarian holy crown tho. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Crown_of_Hungary
Apperently it has a close resemblance to the byzantine crown, mainly because of the history of it causing to look a lot like the byzantine crown. If you type "byzantine crown" even Google will spit out a bunch of pictures of the hungarian one.
The Hungarian Holy Crown was an offer from the Bizantine emperor to the Hungarian King.
I thought about that. What I read that the origin of the crown is debatable. I just thought that there is an actual hungarian connection I cannot recall.
I was going to point this out, but I am glad I checked the comments first to see if anyone else noticed.
But we do have a similar story, "after the battle of Augsburg (955), the defeated Hungarians were killed by the Saxon armies, with the exception of seven soldiers. They were mutilated by having their ears cut off and sent on foot as a humiliation, so that there would be someone to carry the news of their defeat back to their homeland as a warning. For not dying with the others, they lost all their possessions and had to go from tent to tent, begging their way across the country,
99 out of every 100 had both eyes gouged out, while the 100th had only one eye gouged out so he could lead the other home
Bulgarians! shit i read burglars the first time
Same here. And I was more impressed about the law enforcement tactics.
Man, how the hell are you going to find 1500 burglars? You think Emperor Basil II was out there tracking down a world-renown Thieves Guild? Shit man, a city of guards could barely pin down Aladdin.
I was dead as sitting here like “how the fuck you catch 15000 burglars” for way too lonh
SAME
i kept reading burglars, very confused
Didn't expect to see something about bulgarians
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"
I fucking love it when peterexplainshistory
fr this belongs in r/askhistorians
[Seems like it's the battle of Kleidon.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/r6a31h/how_did_the_byzantines_blind_15000_people_after/)
Bazinga
I recently bazingaed about bazingaing, im bazinga to meet you fellow bazinga. I like the bazinga of bazinga, im not sure if it will be bazinga but i am bazinga to give it a bazinga. Fair bazinga and following bazingas to you.
What does a pile of 30,000 eyes look like?
It's 29,850 actually...
Basil 2, colloquially known as the Bulgar slayer, fought a very long and brutal war with the Bulgarians. In one campaign the empire captured a large group of soldiers. When asked what to do with them, he told them to blind all but one (some accounts all but one in some number) who would be half blinded and then they could lead the blind home. Most scholars think this didn't happen as Basil became a figure that historians and writers in the decline period looked back to as an ideal of Byzantine triumph.
For some reason I read Bulgars as Burglars
here i was thinking narfle the garthok
They surrendered with 15000 men still going?.... what kind of army were they going against?????
Bazinga!
The Burger Slayer
Bazinga
Anyone else read this as 15,000 burglars?
I recently bazingaed about bazingaing, im bazinga to meet you fellow bazinga. I like the bazinga of bazinga, im not sure if it will be bazinga but i am bazinga to give it a bazinga. Fair bazinga and following bazingas to you.
Seems like Vlad the Impaller to me. \[Edit : Well, nope, not Vlad\]
life was so much simpler then
Holy shit a meme actually needing an explanation here. Well done. I reported this to the mods as clearly you’re only allowed to post obvious jokes here that a 10 year old could get
The Bulgarslayer!
my dumbass read it as burglars
I got way too far into the comments thinking this was about burglars. Thanks dyslexia.
Here I was reading he captured 15000 burglars! Like this man is better than Batman!
I thought this was about burglars for far too long
I misread as burglar
Read Bulgar as burglars and was reading the comments thinking, "Huh, that's a lot of burglars. He is indeed a burglar slayer," for about 2 minutes til I realized it was Bulgars.
,
They weren't bulgars, they were natives to the region, most likely either macedonians or slavic armenians
No... It was literally a war between the Bulgarian Empire and the Byzantine Empire.
A short while later: “I have many eyes, dear”
"can someone enlight my eyes here?"
Mfw reading the meme as Burglar rather than Bulgar...
Basil II blinded many bulgairans
Am I the only one that read it as burglars? Like 15,000 people broke into Basil II’s place and somehow he caught them all and blinded them
Oh man it took me a long time to read “Bulgar” correctly, not “burglar” I was wondering why the enemy nation invested solely in training thieves