Theodosian Walls of Constantinople, Ottoman Empire. 1870. (1760x1364)
By - Suttte
I find it mind-boggling that we can look at photos taken 150 years ago.
We can look at photos nearly 200 years old at this point.
In 100 years we'll be able to look at photos 300 years old 😳
Well, someone will. Not sure about us. Ha
I'm wondering if there are people alive today who will be alive then. I know some billionaires are investing in life span lengthening technology. Wonder if our great grand kids will see trillionaires who are 150 years old.
While average life expectancy has increased because of medical advances, maximum human lifespan has not. It seems as though barring a revolutionary medical breakthrough, we’ll just see more and more people living past 110. Between 110 and 120, you just lose the stem cells you need to refresh vital cell populations like immune cells.
Age reversing. Interesting video
I have no knowledge on this but couldn't you get stem cells injected in you? I mean the varying things I've read are growing replacement organs. Having some sort of body transplant or synthetic body. Having your mind copied and uploaded. Or something about gene therapy that stops your cells from aging. Most of these sound like science fiction but so would everything we have now sounded th ef same 70 years ago.
The issue with very old age is mostly due to telomere shortening. Telomeres are 'caps' at the end of your genetic code which ensure that during transcription there are no (or very few) errors that occur. As the process of transcription happens the telomere ends begin to shorten with each new transcription cycle. When they erode away genetic errors happen a lot more often. So, cancers and other diseases become much more common.
I have like a 3rd grade understanding of this, but if I recall correctly, this is an approximate of the process and a fundamental limitation on age.
Perhaps with more research on telomeres and potential therapies being developed the maximum age of humans could be increased by 150-200% if not more.
I'm sure there's a few toddlers around that'll be alive then
The 2047 Great Nuclear War may have something else to say about that.
My son might. He's 18 months old now.
Buy him a few hundred acres on Mars now -- he'll be rich!
I don't think 150 years is outrageous in regards to just *staying alive*, not sure how well the mind would work at that point though.
There are plenty of science fiction/supernatural stories that propose immortality (for example) being a psychological hell.
As a kind of related thought, with the world already being over-populated, people living longer and longer also means old generations will die slower than young generations are born, which means people will be "added" to an existing population instead of "replacing" it's dying members; the world would just become even more overcrowded.
I think nature already figured this out and decided that mortality was a good idea.
I think immortality would be for the very wealthy. As in a few dozen people at most. It wouldn't be given to all.
Wonder how close they'll be to uploading their memories into a machine. Or copy them exactly.
The thinking is that humans will soon be able to live to around 130 years but just not in our lifetime.
I think I've read somewhere that scientists believe the first immortals are likely already alive they are just toddlers
If we were even close, we'd see somebody breaking the old age record every year. I'd be surprised if any toddlers today break 150. Honestly more people living to 150 while physically and/or mentally incapable could cause the world more harm than good.
150 year old trillionaires... yeah that's exactly what the world needs?? God Bless the 7 billion 40 year old non million, billion, trillion aires
Didnt say that's what world needs. Holy shit no. They already have segments of the population worship some of them and they aren't anything special about them now. Can you imagine an immortal being with unlimited funds who uses endless propaganda to make the easily swayed love them.
I listened to an interesting radio show that was talking about some of the moral/social implications of gene editing/"designer babies"
TLDR (the end result is vampire capitalism)
The one guy argued it must be free and accessible for all, or it will be only the super-wealthy that are able to access it, leading to a larger wealth gap.
Imagine you pay to make your kids 10% smarter/long-lived/require less sleep. They take over your business with a natural ease and run it more efficiently than you ever could.
They have kids. These ones are 10% better, leading to more success/wealth annnnnd after a few generations of this you end up with a few impossibly long lived, impossibly smart overlords and the filthy huddled masses.
*I'll see if I can find the show and I'll add it here. it was a few years back but really interesting stuff and your comment smacks of it*
Probably where we're headed. Basically sounds like ancient mythology where gods will rule over our entire lives.
As technology develops mankind may one day be able to look back at photos 400-500 years old. Where will it end?
That’s something I envy about people in the future. Photography has not even been around for 200 years yet (about 198-195 years now), but someone 100 to 200 years from now can look 300-400 years back in time. Imagine if we had photos from the 1600s and 1700s, that would be crazy
Imagine if we had photos from the Roman empire...
Legit. I wish photography was invented earlier
It could've if the great library of Alexandria didn't burn down or if a 16th century monk didn't carelessly scrub out the earliest form for calculus
Why does everyone think the Library of Alexandria had all these technological advancements that were lost.
It’s more to do with the loss of such vast accumulations of knowledge, which severely hindered the march of progress in the succeeding centuries. We basically had to re-learn a bunch of stuff. A major step back due to opportunity cost
There were tons of libraries all over the place, though many weren't as great as the one in Alexandria. Unfortunately a lot of the loss of ancient texts has to do with the spread of Christianity and the thought that pagan works were evil and only religious texts should be copied.
Someone one day in the future will find your comment, and it will become interesting to him to read what people were talking about 100 or 300 years ago. The Internet is a kind of cave painting of ancient people, I hope reddit will last that long or other platforms. Therefore, they say hello to distant descendants, perhaps you will read this.
Fuck I hope my distant descendants don’t find my Reddit account. They’ll know I was a fucking idiot.
Honestly though, maybe the greater wealth of primary sources will allow distant civilizations to reflect on how dumb we actually are, instead of idealizing their ancestors like we often do now. Maybe break the cycle of “Let’s get back to the good old days” and instead create a desire to creat better future days. Or maybe that’s overly idealistic
What's refreshing about history is that we're usually a bit more humane as the generations go onward through time.
But no matter how many thousands of years go by, humans are still struggling and still learning the same lessons about themselves and their ideas for our world. It's what we are.
Until we have an EMP or other major catastrophe causing a grid failure and all these electronically stored items are gone. The little bit of physical media that's left deteriorates, and they refer to the dark ages of 2400 in 3900.
Hello future people looking at this thread, I just masturbated
But at what cost? I envy nothing for the people of the future, only those of a not so distant past
Bold of you to assume humanity will still be around in 100 years
There's almost no way that humans are extinct within 100 years. It would take a catastrophe orders of magnitude worse than the worst climate predictions to wipe out the human race. So, don't catastrophize so much my fellow random internet human, it's bad but not that bad!
It's actually not bold at all. Nothing short of a meteor of a size simar to the one that caused the Mesozoic extinction would suffice. Climate change, while it will kill and displace many, is not an extinction level event. Neither is nuclear war - there'd be massive sections of the globe that no one would bother launching nukes at (South America, most of Africa, possibly Australia) and fallout is a temporary problem. We're far more resilient as a species than doomers give us credit for.
Since I didn't see anyone else mention this feel like I have to point out that these are the same year lmao.
Like, in a hundred years, if nothing changes as it already is, we will be able to see the photos from 300 years ago... because we can already see them. It's just that right now, they're 200 years old. At that time, they will be 300 years old lol.
edit: i.e., so the technologically impressive version of this would be if, in 100 years, we could see 400 year old photography. That's going an additional 100 years back on our current technology.
edit2: oh, my bad, maybe this was meant to be this way as a joke. I dunno, I was just trying to avoid working lol. Sorry if I pulled a thatsthejoke.jpeg!
Stop I can only get so erect
This picture is of a guy who was born in 1749 and served in the continental army. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Heyer
And the possibility older but not verified person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(slave)
Bach was alive when that dude was born; Mozart and Beethoven weren't born yet...
Dude's only 9 years younger than Beethoven's *dad*.
>more a contemporary figure then he is a historical one
What can that possibly mean other than some relative and arbitrary categorization? I just think of those people as being alive so long ago that a photograph of their contemporaries seems impossible.
Sometimes I watch movies from the 1940s and I realize that the 70 something year old actors were born around the time of the civil war and I’m just sitting here in Florida in my living room watching this person born during the time of Lee, Grant, Lincoln, Farragut, etc crack a joke and walk and talk and I realize that holy shit they really were real people and not just a name in a book or article.
Then I wonder if their parents who were born decades before the civil war ever thought some dude in Florida would be watching their elderly child on a moving picture box in HD in 2021. I watched Fort Apache and I think one of the actors was born in the 1860s.
What’s even crazier is that there were actors and caresses born during and before the Indian wars doing movies about the Indian wars…after WW2 but they were still alive. It’s all very trippy and it sent me down a rabbit hole to find the oldest person (by birth year) ever to appear in film. One of the best candidates was Queen Victoria. I believe she was born in the 1830s?
the video interviews of old people from the 20's-30's boggle my mind. They had a man who witnessed Abraham Lincolns murder when he was 5 on an old TV show. Youtube Old videos are crazy.
There's a picture of a devastated Richmond ~~(or was it Atlanta?)~~ after the Civil War. It really screwed me up because it genuinely looked like a a picture taken from the Eastern Front of WWII.
~~I'm gonna see if I can find it~~
Damn, no idea it was that bad.
Oh it was bad. The American Civil War was one of the earliest glimpses of how war was going to be carried out during the 20th century. Sherman's March to the Sea being one of the early examples of Total War.
Trenches, machine guns and even submarines were used. The Civil War was especially brutal for it's time.
I saw one video about a Man who talked about being a "Whig" before being a "Republican". Bizarre that I saw a video of a man talking about being a member of the Whig party.
The whigs still live on in the UK under the Liberal Democrats
> Bizarre that I saw a video of a man talking about being a member of the Whig party.
I saw it too. He seemed like he was very proud of that, like the 2 contemporary parties were not as good as the Whigs.
Then this will fry your brain....the last surviving widow of a US civil war veteran died in 2020.
Wasn't that mainly a pension scheme?
Or it's a young girl trying to survive the great depression. From Wikipedia she married a 93 year old at age 17.
Anna Nicole Smith during the great depression.
Nah he came up with the idea and she stopped applying for the pension only three years after his death. Seems like both were good folk.
It was indeed - but isn't it fascinating to think that a year ago, you might've been able to talk to someone who had listened to a first hand account of that conflict?
In 1948 there was a reunion of 9 surviving native warriors who fought at Little Big Horn. They told stories about shooting at Custer's troops during his final stand. We know the exact hills they were on at the battlefield thanks to them. Here's a pic: https://www.bhpioneer.com/news/groethe-recalls-posing-survivors-of-battle-of-greasy-grass-in/article_f9873dc3-b0c0-518d-8e4c-c900656b0c73.html
I always found it interesting that you can look at pictures taken before the "discovery" of gorillas
photos taken 150 years ago of > 1600 year old constructs <
In a 1,000 years people will be able to watch tv shows and news broadcast from a thousand years ago.
Imagine having news broadcast about the viking invasion of Europe or of the actual fall of constantinople.
Mind-boggling too are the hoops we have to jump through to preserve or restore
You can see walls today in Istanbul. They are preserved very well.
What's actually fascinating to me is how much Istanbul grew beyond these walls so fast. The pic shows outside the wall as basically empty and now it's right in the middle if a bustling city.
The city extended outside the wall even back then. What you are seeing is a parklike strip of greenspace that runs along the outside of the wall, and today is mostly occupied cemeteries and roadways. If you take a look on google maps you can see that it still looks similar today.
Interesting. Guess being the capital of one of the most influential empire's in history does that to ya.
Interestingly enough, with many cities like Rome, it was the opposite in the Middle Ages. The walls were much to big and entire sections of the City were just left to rot.
Wait really? Was it due to being unable to feed such a large population because of the nation's infastructure collapsing as a result of the Roman Empire falling apart?
Well, the early Middle Ages were a time of deurbanization in general, but especially Rome was hit hard by the lack of North African grain shipments. Italy at the time was also constantly being fought over by the byzantines and various Germanic peoples like the lombards and vandals and ravaged by plagues like the Justinian plague. I don’t have the exact Population Numbers but Rome literally dropped from a city with over a million inhabitants to one with around 30 000 I’ve I remember correctly.
The old outskirts of Rome were only reclaimed in the 19th century when Italy United and Rome as the new capital had an enormous population influx.
Yeah, I think only the Byzantines (who saw themselves and ***were*** Roman) were able to retain some of Rome's old infastructure and even then they had to abandon some/most of it.
Another thing to note is that even inside the western Roman Empire, Rome has lost a lot of its importance before it fell. Ravenna was the Capital, and cities like Milan were very important
This is true. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Western Roman Empire one of the few irl nations that could be comparable to WH40K's Imperium of Man?
Constantinople also went through that phase the last decades before the fall.
Constantinople itself was the same, dwindling to low 5-figures in population by 1452
Thats true for a lot of European cities, especially when industrialisation happened but even before that in a lot of cases. I would say most major European cities have old defensive walls at their city centres.
Yea I mean since 1800 the population of the world began growing insanely exponentially. Makes sense that cities blew way past their original boundaries, esp if they were built in antiquity, even late antiquity as in this case. Before 1800 constantinople fluctuated from ~100,000 ppl near its beginnings, up to 700,000 at its pre-modern peak. Now it's got 15 million people, and almost half of that expansion is just since the year 2000.
About 8 years ago a connecting flight I had in Istanbul turned into a 2 night layover. Got to see a bit of the city, and the millennia’s worth of structures built in structures got me all sorts of jazzed. Also, the street cats.
**Puts on crusader helmet**
"That's a weird way of pronouncing Constantinople"
Fourth Crusaders: Uhh... Yeah, yeah totally. Hehe...
*This statue will look mighty fine embedded in the corner of St Mark's*
If you're putting on a crusader helmet, you're probably saying "that's a weird way of pronouncing a pile of rubble and dead bodies where we got some new toys for Venice".
Konstantiniyye is the right way correct?
It's all about the Latin Empire, bruh. Edit: the state created by crusaders who looted and sacked Constantinople, weakening it and eventually paving the way for the Ottoman conquest
*The Trapezuntine Empire has entered the chat, and it's pissed*
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, oh Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
But I've a date in Constantinople! Where will she be waiting?
She'll be waiting in Istanbul!
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam. Why they changed it I can't say, people just like it better that way?
She'll waiting in Istambul
*Every wall in Constantinople*
*Is in Istanbul, not Constantinople...*
The walls are still going on strong today. They're even in better state when compated to the photo thanks to restoration programs.
Walls that weren’t taken by foreign armies for 1000 years. It took the creation of one of the largest cannons in human history to breach them.
Fun fact: those cannons or bombards did very little to the wall. It took a very long time to reload them, so much time in fact that the defenders were able to repair the walls well enough that another bombard did little damage. It was a Turkish captain who captured a gatehouse and rose the Turkish flag which led to the defenders of the walls (who were mainly levies) to rout, allowing the Turks to take the walls completely
Doge Enrico Dandolo of Venice would like a word with you.
I hear he has a new currency.
The crusaders attacked the sea walls. the land walls held.
This is true, they did attack the walls at the sea but the walls were connected. So it makes no difference which wall they took. The walls fell which caused the city to fall.
Even then it took the Byzantines accidentally leaving a sortie door open and their leader being wounded.
That point actually plays into the point I made, it was a cascade of events when led to the fall of the walls
Accidently leaving the door open makes it sound a lot more tame than it actually was. The gate was being assaulted and in the confusion no one was able to close the door being preoccupied by a the whole fighting and all.
Plus it probably wasn't the real decisive moment in the siege as reddit tries to make it out to be.
Not really though. The Crusaders took the city in the Fourth Crusade, mere couple hundred years before 1453 when the Ottomans came.
People (especially on r/europe) think of the Ottomans as barbarians and savages but if you really think about it, they were among the most educated civilizations that ever existed.
Among their achievements:
1) cartography --> First civilization to map the world
2) cannon-making --> First civilization to perfect the cannon
3) ship-making --> Prior to modern battleships, the Ottomans had the largest ship-of-the-line vessels
To be fair, I bet the Ottomans considered Europeans barbarians and savages, so it sort of goes both ways.
He said people on r/europe considered Ottomans barbarians, not Europeans of the Middle Ages who lived during Ottoman times. A better comparison would be how r/turkey considers Middle Age Europe
Same thing with the Achmaneid Persians at the time of Classical Greece due to Western bias.
Persia at the time was quite 'cosmopolitan' in that it was a multi-ethnic empire that allowed it's subjugated vassals to live semi-autonomously and respected religious freedom (unlike Romans). From what I read they also didn't have slaves in the same way the Greeks had.
Meanwhile, ancient Greeks [literally had childraping embedded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty) into their culture, yet somehow it's the Persians that are the evil oriental barbarians in western lore.
Uh what? I am pretty sure all three of these things are wrong.
Piri Reis was an Ottoman admiral and cartographer. His map was the first map that showed Antarctica centuries before its “discovery” by the Western Europeans. Unfortunately, much of the map has been lost (2/3 of it).
piri reis map is the first known map to have the entire world mapped.
Lots of issues with that statement.
The reason it’s noteworthy is that it extended further south of the eastern coast of the Americas and further south in Africa, but didn’t reach the Cape. It didn’t map the western coast of the New World at all. His map of the New World was completely based on Portuguese and Spanish maps as well. It was a compilation of already available maps that was just more accurate than the average map and considered ahead of its time. The Piri Reis map is also less complete that the earlier Waldseemüller and Ringmann map.
Edit: Also, him discovering Antarctica is complete nonsense since he was just a cartographer and not an explorer, and never sailed down there to discover anything in the first place.
All cartographers copy others work, it's how we get big maps arrive people aren't gonna explore the altar explored and mapped. Piri Reis thus copying multiple maps from across the world and making a large one touching all continents(except for Oceania) is pretty good.
The cannons used to break the walls were made by an Italian contractor and the Ottomans relied on foreigners for their cannon making. Many of their great generals were kidnapped foreigners who were forced to convert to Islam and wear turbans, and their entire force of elite soldiers was made up of kidnapped children.
Actually the man who designed and built the cannons Mehmed II used to besiege Constantinople was a Hungarian named Orban
Eh, it's a complicated matter. It's easy to speak about "kidnapped children", but the possibilities granted to them by the Ottoman Empire were basically endless. They were given top-tier education at that time and it was basically expected of them to form the entire Ottoman bureaucracy, and almost the entire upper echelon of Ottoman society. Those kidnapped boys could have become respectable officials, and even generals and viziers, including the second (and sometimes de facto first) person in Ottoman Empire, the grand vizier. And it was an actual meritocracy, so those weren't purely theoretical carrier paths.
While were they not kidnapped, they would have spent their entire lives cleaning their pigs' shit.
While true, they did get castrated & could never live free normal lives. To us it sounds preferable, but the line of reasoning in your argument reminds me a lot of pro-residential school rhetoric lmao
I mean if they were "forced to convert" at some point they had the ability to go back...but they didn't.
People don’t really think the Ottomans were savages, Europeans (especially Balkan Europeans) have a slight distaste for the Ottomans because they conquered the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, an empire they view as much more a cultural forbear than the Turkish, Muslim empire the Ottomans were.
I don’t share this view myself, as much as I absolutely *love* Byzantine history, much more than I like Turkish history, all the Ottomans really did was mop up the last tattered remnants of an Empire that had already destroyed itself a century earlier.
\> First civilization to map the world
Could you explain that? Like that doesn't even make any sense.
Also HMS Victoria was probably the biggest ship of the line to exist.
The map referenced is one of the first maps ever made with both the Americas and the Indian ocean. The Ottomans made the most complete map ever when it was made, though the American parts of the map was copied from Portuguese maps that had been captured in battle.
The biggest sail ship of the line ever built was [Mahmudiye.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_ship_Mahmudiye) at about 20 meters longer with 20 more guns. The Victory was built 60 years earlier. The Mahmudiye was built in the 1820s, 20 years before the second biggest ship of the line ever built was (a French ship which unusually had flat sides).
History porn, indeed !
Incredible how well preserved the walls still were. After over 1000 years
This is probably the coolest fucking picture I’ve seen in a while
[Walls of Constantinople/Istanbul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Constantinople)
[Life around the walls](https://www.sihirlitur.com/nostalji/sahilyolu/index.html) about 50-70 years ago
[Walls and Gates](https://www.istanbulium.net/2014/03/istanbul-kara-surlar.html) current and some old
This is amazing. I really wish i knew how it actually looked. When i see anchient ruins, i assume they had the bricks covered in marble or what not? Or is what we are looking at how it actually looked?
On the top of the towers would they have had a structure for shade? Flags? I really wish I knew.
Castle walls and city walls were painted with white limestone - when they had money or before celebrations
Fascinating photo. It begs the question, "Why did Constantinople get the works?"
It's nobody's business but the Turks!
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam, after all...
Istanbul was once Constantinople!
Constantinople was waaaaayyyy better!!
I dunno... after the name change "people just liked it better that way."
This looks exactly like a scene from Age of Empires 2
Rise of Empires: Ottoman on Netflix is a great miniseries about mehmed capturing Constantinople, told from both sides.
While it takes some creative liberties, I actually loved to see Byzantine Empire portrayed in any way in media. We have a lot of movies set in ancient times, in Rome, in Egypt, in medieval times in Europe, but somehow Byzantine Empire is a heavily underutilized setting.
I believe an Assassin’s Creed game uses it as a partial setting and Rise of the Tomb takes a few more liberties but also leverages Byzantine elements. Would love to see more representation in media too!
> I believe an Assassin’s Creed game uses it as a partial setting
Unfortunately, it takes place after Ottoman conquest, during the reign of Bayezid II.
Since the walls are getting a lot of love, the road here is very beautiful too!
Walls are still preserved today but don't go near them if you don't want to get stabbed/robbed, they have dangerous homeless people living inside/around them.
If they hadn't been betrayed by the so-called Christians of the Fourth Crusade, sacked and deeply weakened thereafter, the Bysantine Empire might have stood to this day, in one form or another. It would have completely reshaped the entire Middle East since it controlled what are currently Lebanon, Israel, Syria Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and of course Turkey - all of them Christian lands.
It had steadily lost territory for 500 years at that point, unlikely things were going to turn around.
You can find it on google earth quit easy. Historical centre of istanbul (Fatih) is on a peninsula and on the base of that peninsula you can find those walls
Silly goose they didn't have GPS in 1870.
Well now I have They Might Be Giants stuck in my head: https://youtu.be/xo0X77OBJUg
I guess its between Gates of Belgrade and Yedikule Fortress.
Somewhere along this road (click the link for streetview):
That's nobody's business but the Turks.
Seems odd that the ottoman empire existed up until ww1
Constantinople was just a shell of its glory of the past in this photo
Amazing photo, but also sad to see such mighty walls, which repelled invaders for a millennium, in such a state of ruin. It makes the baby Constantine cry.
Apparently, Alaric or Attila (or both) marched on Constantinople. Then once seeing for themselves the walls, didn't even attempt to conquer the city. Amazing to think that they were so strong that even when the city could barely afford to put any soldiers on them, they still repelled multiple sieges and nearly repelled Mehmet the Conquerer.
Don't weep for its loss, but celebrate that it existed.
100 years from now people will be looking at a lot of shitty selfies
Constantinople will return to Christian hands. Just a matter of time.
probably not man, its the 21st century, youre about 800 years late on the whole "religious conquest" thing
I'm pretty sure Greece is already independent.
*The Romans. Literally no one ever referred to them as "Byzantines" when they were around, take a time machine, go back and call them that and they'll call you mad.
They called themselves Romans. The rest of Europe called them Greeks.
no shit, there hasnt been an ethnic roman for some time by the fall of constantinople. they were greeks and knew that, but they were literally a continuation of the roman empire. so if people call them romans, they arent wrong.
>The rest of Europe called them Greeks.
Yes a perfect example of the petty jealousy endemic in human nature.
A Turk steal your girl? Chill you chimpanzee.
Some people are salty because they killed the Roman Empire. Europe wouldn't had a resonsonace if the Turks didn't finish them off tho but they never think of that.
That moment when the Turks won right after WW1 lol