Talk:Fall of Constantinople

Christian insurgency?

I see no mention of anything occurring after the sack save for its becoming the Ottoman capital. Even though the city was badly underpopulated and people surrendered to the Ottomans, was there any sort of Christian insurgency against the Ottomans? Whether it lasted a few weeks or a decade or more? Whether it was in the form of night-time raids or full-blown street fighting between two small armies? There isn't much information on post-Byzantine life in Constantinople AndarielHalo (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of Christian soldiers, including Greeks, fought for the Ottomans, and undoubtedly so at the Siege of Constantinople. They were outnumbered at least 10 to 1 (the Greeks) and they had proven themselves incapable of defending themselves in the fronts. To suggest that they somehow became overwhelmed with a patriotic urge to fight their Ottoman conquerors, after the results were very clear is out of the question. I find it amusing that you would use a term like "insurgency". Gabr-el 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There were some small scale fighting in Constantinople after its fall, which was rather brief, since the invading army practically left none alive. Emperor Constantine XI was killed, Ecumenical Patriarch Athanasius II was killed, Megas Doux (equivelent to modern Prime Minister) Loukas Notaras was executed, most of the Byzantine aristocracy and royalty was annihilated (an example is the last Emperor of Trebizond, David of Trebizond, who was beheaded along with his 7 sons, on Sultan's orders in 1463). Some others fled to the West. Nonetheless, the Greeks revolted in a chain of small or significant uprisings a total of 400 times, until 1821. --Hectorian (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you insult me for using terms you imply I only just learned from watching TV nonstop for the past few years. Not amusing, actually; insulting. I find it insulting. Wikipedia itself defines insurgency as: a violent internal uprising against a sovereign government that lacks the organization of a revolution.

Considering how the Emperor was killed in fighting, and the city was already badly underpopulated, I sincerely doubted that there would be a chance to unite enough people around one head for anything remotely like a successful rebellion. AndarielHalo (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hectorian: When you say "practically left none alive", you mean of the Byzantine leadership and authority figures, or common people and civilians as well? AndarielHalo (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Those in a position to resist in all likelihood were not left alive. Constantinople retained a significant Greek population thereafter, so a total slaughter is improbable. Gabr-el 16:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Even in the event of a total slaughter, Mehmed II spent years repopulating the city. Which would explain the later Greek population. "Mehmed’s main concern with Istanbul had to do with rebuilding the city’s defenses and repopulation. Building projects were commenced immediately after the conquest, which included the repair of the walls, construction of the citadel, and building a new palace. Mehmed issued orders across his empire that Muslims, Christians, and Jews should resettle the city; he demanded that five thousand households needed to be deported to Istanbul by September. By 1459 the Sultan promoted a lot of energy to bringing prosperity to Istanbul. In several quarters of the city pious foundations were created; these areas consisted of a theological college, a school (or a Madrasa, usually connected to the mosque), a public kitchen, and a mosque. In the same year Mehmed sent out orders that any Greeks who left Istanbul as slaves or refugees were allowed to return to the city. These actions lead Istanbul to become a once again thriving capital of the Ottoman Empire." Dimadick (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sheeps as "pretext" reason

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kansas_Bear&oldid=274005791#Nonsesn) The reason was sheeps for Conquest of Constantinopol. I don't joke. I'm serios. --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to search on Google for koyun (sheep) but gives me köyün (... the village). --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is not the real reason but the "allegation" / "pretext". --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Both sources (Ottoman and Byzantine) affirm that event (the sheeps event). I've heard it from the TV were 2 historicans were talking about the concuest of Constantinoplole. --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

user: "Kansas Bear" thinks that it is nonses, but let us try to find the source. Please do not remove this text.

Here is my removed text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Constantinople&diff=274003209&oldid=274002211 --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC) "The reason was that there were arrested Ottoman soldier by Byzantinians, who (Ottoman soldiers) were tryed to get sheep taxes from Byzantinians near Constantinople, Ottomans claimed that the event was within Ottoman lands, the contact of Ottoman Empire with Byzantium was inconclusive, therefore Ottoman Empire gained "meaningful" reason to attacked." --144.122.250.143 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC) --Jake 17:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)the plural of Byzantine is "Byzantines" not "Byzantinians", that is, assuming that you people are speaking english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakerslake (talk • contribs)

Are you saying that this 'sheep tax' was the pretext for the Siege of Constantinople in 1453? I've never heard of this before and Constantine knew very well that pressing that kind of issue would result in a lot of trouble. Sounds like justification after the fact... The sources you provided above are not reliable sources. What other source(s) are you citing? Dinkytown 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, yes, but more definitely the arrested few Ottoman soldiers because of the sheep tax. Yes, ...the Siege of Constantinople in 1453. And yes, it is pretext. Now I'm giving you more information: One of these historians is Murat Bardakçı who has a TV program on Haber Türk called Tarihin Arka Odası, I do not remember the other one's name (he is in the same program too). He is giving his mail address during the program, may be someone can get his mail address and ask (I suggest you to ask after the program) for source about this topic. --144.122.250.148 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If that wikipedia page is correct, then Murat Bardakçı would *NOT* be a credible source, as he defends the Armenian Genocide, which the Turkish government completely denies. This 'sheep tax' is just an attempt to defend "Turkishness" and the 'Turkish image'. The Turkish media does not have a good reputation in being unbiased. There is a lot of after-the-fact justifications for a lot of stuff - the 'sheep tax' is just one of them. Constantine tried his best to resolve any disputes with Metmed, to no avail. One of the first things he did was build Rumelihisarı, nearly two years before the siege. They guy wanted the city badly and he planned for it - not defending a 'sheep tax'. Don't even think of using it as a source on the page. Dinkytown 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not matter whether he defends so called Armenian Genocide or not. But he said something interesting, and let us wait whether there is source or not. To clarify: You are saying that it is attempt to defend Turkishness. But if you watched that program you would hear that they said that "Of course those arrested Ottoman soldiers were only pretext, whether or not they were going to sign Constantinople". So, it does not seem like an attempt to defend Turkishness, isn't it? Please do not speak with your biased mind! History is not for biased people. Moreover, if you are using only non-Turkish sources can you say for yourself that you are unbiased? Look for both (Ottoman and Byzantine) sources, if they have a common story then it is a fact. --144.122.250.139 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of his mail addresses: mbardakci€hurriyet.com.tr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.250.139 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The point being made about the Armenian Genoice, which numerous scholars support the existence of, and which numerous Turkish "scholars" unsurprisingly deny, is that this writer, who has made his bias against the traditional enemies of Turks clear with his Armenian genocide denial, is likely to make up nonensense biasing against the Greeks, to make it look like the Turks were not the aggressors.

Stop this laughable nonesense. No credible scholar has mentioned anything of any tax. The fact of the matter is that Constantine XI begged the Sultan not to attack and sent out ambassadors with gifts, of which neither returned. The Ottomans had it in their mind to take Constantinople in 1402, in 1423 and 1453 was their lucky shot. Gabr-el 17:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Since you made this personal I'll explain my reasoning for the above. I have lived in Turkey for several months and I know the media is like - rancid... A Turkish reporter is not going to go against the offical position of the Turkish government. There have already been reporters arrested because they "insulted the Turkishness" of the state under Article 301. Anyone, such as Murat Bardakçı who denies the Armenian Genocide, plays right into the governments policy. Bardakçı a suspect charater, just like anyone who denies the Holocaust (Jewish) is suspect and not credible. Murat Bardakçı couldn't get a job as a reporter in the EU or the US because of his statements, but in Turkey he's employable. I - and most other people, would discredit that person because of his position - no matter what else they said about anything, including a 'sheep tax'. There is no scholarly sources, primary or otherwise, that has come to light regarding this "sheep tax" dispute between the Byzantines and Turks. This 'sheep tax' is a modern creation only to make Mehtmed look better (declaring war without provocation?) - maybe even to make the Turks look like a victim in 1453? The source is simply wrong - just drop it... Dinkytown 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you accept the propaganda of Armenians your comments should not be considered as something important.

And you (Gabr-el) above, since you have believes, which are nonscientific (even comic), your comments should not be considered as something important. --144.122.250.144 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow - So Article 301 = Armenian propaganda? LOL - who is comical here? Dinkytown 04:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE RELATION OF THIS ARTICLE WITH THE ARMENIANS????? PSEUDO OBJECTIVE WIKIPEDIAAAAAA!!!! ARMENIANS ALSO KILLED TURKS WHY YOU DO NOT MENTION THIS!!! BECAUSE YOU ARE IDIOTIC SMALL MISERABLESS!!!

The guy who talks about a sheep tax and a nonesense theory for the Fall is calling my beliefs comic. So let me reiterate Dinkytown, WOW!!!Gabr-el 04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

References

The Turks were muslims and the city had first been weakened by the 4th crusade in 1204. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.135.162 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

historical event infobox

The following was the start of this conversation on User:Reddi's talk page:

I removed your title box for Fall of Constantinople, as it was in the middle of the article and that there was already a title box in the intro. Dinkytown (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to restore the infobox. It is an important event in western history and modern history. a turning point. J. D. Redding 16:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not restore (please remove) your infobox. Read WP:IBX for the proper way to use them. The way you are using them is incorrect. Dinkytown (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a important historical event. This is not to replace the one at the top. It is to identify the specific event. There is NOTHING in WP:IBX that goes against the placement of the infobox at the event; infact it says "designed to be placed into main articles related to the topic area". The taking of Constantinople is the event and it's placement is there. J. D. Redding 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And you also removed it from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehmed_II&diff=prev&oldid=301888615 ... WTF!?!? J. D. Redding 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to the talk:Fall of Constantinople talkpage. Dinkytown (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

End of User:Reddi talk page - continuing here: Dinkytown (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

---

{{Infobox historical event
  |Event_Name     = Taking of Constantinople
  |Image_Name     = Zonaro GatesofConst.jpg
  |Image_Caption  = [[Mehmed II]] enters Constantinople by Fausto Zonaro
  |AKA            = Fall of Constantinople; Conquest of Constantinople
  |Participants   = [[Ottoman Empire]] ([[Mehmed II]]), [[Byzantine Empire]] ([[Constantine XI]])
  |Location       = [[Constantinople]]
  |Date           = 1453
  |Result         = [[Decline of the  Byzantine Empire|End of the Byzantine Empire]]; Constantinople made Ottoman capital; Began [[Christendom]]'s [[modern age]].
}}

It goes to the section of:

After the initial assault, the Ottoman army fanned out along the main thoroughfare of the city, the Mese, past the great forums, and past the Church of the Holy Apostles, which Mehmed II wanted to provide a seat for his newly appointed patriarch which would help him better control his Christian subjects. Mehmed II had sent an advance guard to protect key buildings such as the Holy Apostles, as he did not wish to establish his new capital in a thoroughly devastated city.

---

The Infobox Historical Event is used in the Wikipedia:WikiProject History to identify important and significant events. The Infobox {{Infobox historical event}} should be added to the pages of notable events.

This needs to be placed into the article. It is a significant event in western history and modern history. J. D. Redding 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, this is not to replace the one at the top. It is to identify the specific event. There is NOTHING in WP:IBX that goes against the placement of the infobox at the event; infact it says "designed to be placed into main articles related to the topic area". J. D. Redding 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how this box would help the reader identify the event. The event is already more than adequately identified by the title, and given at least some context in the military conflict infobox and, more importantly, the lead. Alone, the {{Infobox historical event}} merely recapitulates the main points of the article, without adding any information whatsoever. I am not one of the "infoboxes must burn in hell" milieu, but one can overdo it, and the fact is, it simply has no point in being there, as it offers nothing useful to the article. Anyone who has read up to that section already knows what the article is about. If the article did not have an infobox already, or if a suitable infobox could not be found, I'd certainly let it stand (and put it on top), but military events are perfectly well covered by WPMILHIST templates. Regards, Constantine ✍ 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Other than you not liking the look of it, your POV ("infoboxes must burn in hell") should not prevent improvements to the article.

Please answer these:

• Is this an notable event?
• Should this infoboxes be added to the pages of notable events?
• How is this "overdoing" it?

It's point in being there is to identify the event. It offers a useful reference to the more general prose of the article. It also identifies the "Results" clearly and easily for the reader.

It's not to put on top. It's to be put where the event is [one can put it on top if there is not another infobox].

J. D. Redding 18:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, WP:IBX doesn't provide any guidance on the use of infoboxes within an article, but rather on style and content of the infoboxes themselves. Constantine ✍ 18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Redding - the question is not if its a notable event, we can all agree on that... The questions is this: is there precedence for putting another info box again in the middle of the article? The event can be linked to another article that goes into more detail of the subject. Where is there another article that has two or more info boxes? What you have there is redundant as there are other infoboxes that support the subject in their own articles. Dinkytown (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Precedence for infoboxes in the body of articles? Yea ... you find them in several articles ... If you look around you can find them. (Are you new to wikipedia?)

BUT, Please answer these:

• Is this an notable event?
• Should this infoboxes be added to the pages of notable events?
• How is this "overdoing" it?

J. D. Redding 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your not reading the responses. As I said, the event is notable. Where is the precedence for those putting in extra infoboxes "... in several articles". Give us some examples. How is this "overdoing" it? Those events have their own infoboxes in their own pages - thats why. Dinkytown (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

examples? here's one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X [2 infoboxes at top even!] ... you can find you own, I don't have time to do the legwork or teach about wikipedia.

you are not answering the questions. If they are not answered [particularly the last one] the infobox should be restored. J. D. Redding 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BTW don't confuse the 'historical event' infobox and the infobox of Military Conflict and infobox of Campaignbox Byzantine-Ottoman Wars [both are at top]. One is for history, and the other is for military. Still waiting on a specific answer. All events DO NOT have their own infoboxes in their own pages. J. D. Redding 19:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, two things: first, please read carefully what I write. I clearly said I am not in the "infoboxes must burn" category. So that is not the reason I oppose it. Second, this is clearly a notable event. However, my question is, how does this particular infobox, in this particular case, contribute anything to the article? It tells us the precise same things that the first infobox does, only the conflict infobox includes some additional details. In the Pope's case (as in that of many kings, princes etc), the infoboxes are of a different nature and about different things. {{Infobox historical event}} merely summarises an event, but we already have an infobox to do just that. Constantine ✍ 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It gives the results. Does the infobox of Military Conflict or infobox of Campaignbox Byzantine-Ottoman Wars allow historical results? If so, then problem solved; otherwise the proble exists [maybey editing down the 'event box' could be a soultion]. J. D. Redding 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (ps., My apologies, sorry for misreading that.)

OK then. There is a "results" field in the Conflict infobox, it currently reads "Decisive Ottoman victory. End of the Byzantine Empire." If you want to tweak around there, feel free to do so. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw the changes made to the page as described above and I can agree to them. Take care... (FYI: I striked the below statement(*redacted* - Dinkytown)). Dinkytown (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That example you cited Redding is a 'sub' infobox, which is not what you are putting into the Fall of Constantinople page. That 'sub' box could have been easily put into the main box. I will not accept that example as it is a poor one. Find a better one than that. You are putting in a whole new template infobox on the Constantinople page - which looks crappy. You've been on wiki long enough to know the difference.

I just told you that those events have their own infoboxes on their own pages. I just answered your question. The infobox should remained removed. Dinkytown (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Over-rated event?

Not to trivialize the significance of the incorporation of what had been a great city of one civilization into another by force...

It would seem that toward its last years, the Byzantine Empire was no longer a going concern. Contemporary sources must have seen the fall of Constantinople as a shocking event due to the earlier reputation of the Byzantine Empire as an economic and military power, but by 1453 it was at most a city-state and at that practically a remnant of one. Modern scholarship recognizes the demographic realities of Constantinople in its last days the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Its fall was by then a certainty. In view of the declining population and worsening conditions of its inhabitants its intellectual life could not have sustained what it had.

As an intellectual center it was by then at most a relic. Byzantine culture had been taken to Russia and Italy, among other places. Much of the literature of Byzantium was copies, and a few intellectual refugees could not have brought all of it. Byzantine learning had shaped late-medieval intellectual activity in most of Europe long before 1453.

The fall of Constantinople did not itself so cut off the east-west trade between Europe and the Far East as used to be claimed. Columbus' and later voyages to the New World being caused by the Turks controlling the east-west trade routes shows a post hoc fallacy. First, were the contention true, then east-west trade between the Far East and western Europe would have ended long beforehand. Second, the Turks were themselves avid traders, and a country generally sympathetic to Turkey (like Poland or France) would have never noticed a difference. Already surrounded by the Ottoman Empire, Constantinople would have been an inconvenient way-station for any long-distance trade long before 1453. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The importance of the event that, all things considered, the Fall of Constantinople was also the Fall of the Roman Empire. Granted we call it the "Byzantine" Empire, but in reality, it was the Roman Empire. And Constantinople was the moment that the great world changing Empire ceased to be. I would call it significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.212.149 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Turks could not cut off trade through the Bosporus because the Genoese controlled the sea and trade routes. For a hundred years before 1453, most of the trade revenues were going through Pera (87%), rather than Constantinople. The Turks had at that time (1453) a rather poor naval fleet, as shown in the sea battle between a few Genoese supply ships, verses dozens of Turkish warships during the siege. I wasn't until Mehmed built the Rumeli Hisari that he could cut the shipping route through the Bosporus by cannon fire. After the fall, Mehmed did cut the route on occasion, sometimes just to provide the point, but when passage was allowed, a heavy toll was placed greatly increasing the cost of goods. This gave western Europeans the incentive to find an alternate route to the Far East as a large part of their tax revenues were collected from the spice/silk trades. Its all in the economics... Dinkytown talk 08:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

European explorers eventually tried to reach India and China through other means because of their loss of Constantinople and Anatolia. The Conquering of Constantinople had an immense effect. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Fallacy of the "Fall" of Constantinople

Earlier there have been discussions about "Fall of Constantinople" being biased - which certainly is. Some users claimed that an opposite example is "Fall of Granada" where a battle lost by an Eastern power is called a "fall", which was a fallacy because this article is called Battle of Granada right now and I cannot see from their discussions the reason it was changed, however I can only guess why - same reason as why this article is called the "Fall": Christian Point of View. Neither is the term "conquest" neutral since that represents Turco-Muslim point of view. I am suggesting to find a third option without inventing any new terms nor doing any historic revision but only by being a neutral Wikipedia user who is not blinded by fanatic nationalism or religion as unfortunately the most active users seem to be, both with users who see the Turks as the "Other" as well as some Turks who want this to be changed to conquest. As it looks right now, it is a shame for Wikipedia. Neutral but only among Westerners, yeah right! One solution could be "End of The Byzantine Empire", or something that would mark the end of Byzantine rule without suggesting biased words such as pity loss nor a glorious victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.75.82 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

How about The Capture of Constantinople. It was the first time the city was captured once and for all. For the Viking capture, another word can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.166.78 (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "Fall..." has been used for centuries. This was not the first time the city fell to invaders. The Forth Crusade, and the subsequent reconquest in 1261, and numerous sackings during the early Roman, pre-Byzantine era. The Vikings never took the city. The Turks use the term "capture". Leave it as the Fall... Dinkytown talk 08:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am from Turkey and I think "Fall of Constantinople" is true term. Because it is "Fall of Constantinople" not "Fall of Istanbul". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.99.223 (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Turakhan Beg

Resolved

There is no mention in this article about one important event and role of Turakhan Beg in the Fall of Constantinople:

In October 1452 Sultan Mehmed II ordered Turakhan Beg and his sons Ahmad and Omar to lead large force to the Peloponnese and to remain there the all winter in order to prevent despots Thomas and Demetrios to assist their brother Constantine during the Siege of Constantinople in 1453.

based on the following source written by Kenneth Setton:

Setton, Kenneth (1976—1984), The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571, four volumes, American Philosophical Society, p. 146, ISBN 978-0-87169-114-9, "While Mehmed II had been making preparations for the siege of Constantinople, he had sent the old general Turakhan and the letter's two sons, Ahmed Beg and Omar Beg to invade the Morea and to remain there all winter to prevent the despots Thomas and Demetrius from coming to assistance to their brother Constantine XI" 

I propose to add above mentioned sentence within preparations section. Does anybody object?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Good find. The ref however is incorrect: the correct work is Setton, Kenneth M. (1978), The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), Volume II: The Fifteenth Century, DIANE Publishing, ISBN 0-87169-127-2 . Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanx. I will correct the ref.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fall of constantinople is a very biased naming, the same as liberation of constantinple. The conquest is the un-biased one. But as other historical articles clearly shows, wikipedia is a biased & western oriented information source after all.

The fall of constantinople opened the gateway to Europe for the Ottomans, It also ment the end of the roman empire and of the longest and most prosporous empire in the history of mankind.

File:Hagia sophia no minarets.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hagia sophia no minarets.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Battle of Constantinople.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Battle of Constantinople.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mehmed and constantinople.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mehmed and constantinople.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Constantine XI Palaiologos.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Constantine XI Palaiologos.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

movie

http://www.fetih1453movie.com/main.html http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetih_1453 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople#Partial_lunar_eclipse

Per May 1453 lunar eclipse which reads "The partial eclipse was visible from, Africa, Asia, and Australia." I am unsure if the eclipse was observable from Europe at all. Given how it is not sourced, I am considering removing the entire section. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Accounts written by people who were at the siege mention the eclipse. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure how much of it was visible. It was a partial eclipse to begin with. Are we sure such sources are historic in origin? Can these sources be cited? http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEhistory/LEplot/LE1453May22P.pdf documents that eclipse was only visible on moon rise I believe. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Chain-istanbul-1453.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chain-istanbul-1453.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Chain-istanbul-1453.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

There have been some edits to a part of the introduction which now reads as follows:

The capture of Constantinople (and two other Byzantine splinter territories soon thereafter) marked the end of the Roman Empire, a state which had lasted for nearly 1,500 years.

I believe I added the parenthetical, to account for the later conquests of the Byzantine states of Trebizond and Morea. Perhaps that precision is at the expense of clarity; the fall of the city was the practical end of the Roman empire, rather than the falls of these minor Byzantine principalities a few years later.

Another question raised by the present language is whether the Roman Empire was a "state" (which had lasted nearly 1,500 years). The Roman Empire was not really a different polity than the Republic. Is there a way we can (or should) address this, while preserving the focus? Kablammo (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a legacy of Gibbon's Decline and Fall. We could alter the sentence to say "Edward Gibbon dates the end of the Roman Empire ... etc", if you think that would work. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the end of the East Roman Empire was the end of the empire (almost tautological when we use "East Roman" instead of "Byzantine"). My concern is that the present language implies that the Roman state was almost 1500 years old when Constantinople fell; that is how old it was when the empire fell, but the Roman state was older. Kablammo (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We could write "...the end of the Roman state, an entity which had lasted for about 2'700 years). Alex2006 (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI: latest instance adding an imperial state which had lasted for nearly 1,500 years.
I have no problem with this but others might, so...Thanatos|talk 01:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

The capital allowed the Turks to establish a permanent supply base in Europe. Further advances into the Kingdom of Hungary and the bordering states(1) would have been difficult, if not impossible, without the harbors of Constantinople bringing in supplies and serving as a fortified center from which to administer the empire(2). And the conquest of the Byzantine Empire removed a foe(3) to the rear of the Ottoman advance into Europe.

1) They had already been doing far flong raids and conquest far beyond Constantinople. 2) Heard of Galipoli and Adrianople/Edirne? 3) It should be essential to write the turks turned on and removed a weak vassal, not an enemy untill they (the turks) attacked..

Summary: this text really need to re-edited and with at least one reliable reference source. --Byzantios (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I rephrased it, removing the part which is senseless. Alex2006 (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The "surrender" of the villages inside the city

I removed the sentences about the surrender of the "villages" in the city. This story is well known, but comes from 16th century, and was an escamotage used by the Ottoman government in the time of Suleyman, to allow the Greek community to keep some churches. In case of surrender, this would have been allowed by the law, but not in case of conquest. So, 3 very old Janissaries were found, who "remembered" that during the conquest in some places inside the city the population freely surrendered to the troops. After that the Rum in Istanbul were allowed to keep their churches. In general, the Ottoman policy towards the non Muslim population oscillated between tolerance (as during Suleyman's reign) and intransigence (as during Selim and Beyazid). Alex2006 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits by User:Paracetamol 23

Paracetomol23, please discuss your edits here. They are irrelevant to the article and do not conform to WP:MOS and contain your own editorializing. You have been reverted by 2 different editors now. Per WP:CONSENSUS, you need to gain consensus for your change before trying to put it in again. DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article due to edit warring. Per WP:BRD, it's typical for the user trying to add contentious edits to discuss them on the talk page, so: here's your chance to explain your rationale. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Several Greek and non-Greek intellectuals fled the city before and after the siege"

As the article says in the lead -- but who are these non-Greek intellectuals? Iblardi (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The body of the article only mentions Greek intellectuals so per WP:LEAD that should change. But whether there were in fact non-Greek intellectuals (the odd Russian or Italian cleric perhaps?) I don't know...Not significant though. DeCausa (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The flee of Greek intellectuals, like Bessarione, to Italy, was one of triggers of the Italian Renaissance. Never heard about the presence of clerics of other nations in Constantinople at that time (maybe Armenians?). Alex2006 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is -in general- biased against Muslim Ottomans

The article is unjust. It doesn't show the Ottoman perspective of the battle. For example, all Ottoman sources assure that the Muslim Conquerors treated the civilians gently after the conquest. One of the great evidences of this, is the Funeral of Constantine XI. Ottoman sources mentioned that the conquerors allowed the Christian people to bury their Emperor according to their religious Rites, and indicated that he was buried in Al-Munzel Al-Atiq in Maydan Wafa.

I found this painting in article: Freedom of religion in Turkey

Ottoman Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror and Greek Orthodox Patriarch Gennadios II. Mehmed II not only allowed the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to remain active in the city after its conquest by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, he also established the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1461, as part of the Millet system. The Byzantines used to regard the Armenian Church as heretic and didn't allow it to operate inside the Walls of Constantinople.

(94.59.255.185 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC))

The article looks biased because the only ones which lost time in writing something were the losers. :-) The Ottoman sources about the Conquest can be barely counted on the fingers of one hand, and some of them are for several reason considered unreliable. As a matter of fact, the contemporary Turks were apparently not aware of the historical significance of the Conquest. If you are interested in learning more about the ottoman sources on the conquest and related historiographical problems, please read "The siege and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 historiography, topography, and military studies" of Marios Philippides, who also shows that the alleged Funeral of Constantine XI in Vefa (like his burial in the Gül Camii) is a legend. Alex2006 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Islamic sources are notoriously biased in regards to their conquests (contemporary Christian ones were as well of course but not nearly to the same extent). Ottoman sources don't even agree on what happened to Constantine XI, some say his dead body was beheaded and his head sent across Anatolia while others say he was buried. We can't alter the article just because one or two Islamic sources have different claims to the consensus of contemporary and modern historians.JasonnF (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No Jason, the main problem is not biasing, it is the paucity of the sources on the Ottomans side. Moreover, Of the 2 main Ottoman sources (Tursun Beg and Evliya Çelebi), the first one is a Panegyric (unreliable by default), and the second was written 200 years after the Fall. One thing is sure: the definitive history of the Conquest must still be written. Alex2006 (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've read many articles about this subject and found that though the inhabitants weren't treated well in the initial break into the city, the sultan soon called off the pillaging and the inhabitants were allowed to live. MarkoPolo56 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mater what is "just", or what "many articles" have to say- but what credible sources can be cited. Generalizations are useless on a talk page. If there is specific text that does not reflect credible sources, bring it here for address. Mavigogun (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Role of Serbia misrepresented

Describing the capture of Constantinople as a joint effort of the Ottoman Empire and the Despotate of Serbia does not make sense. Serbia did send a contingent of 1500 cavalrymen because they were obliged to do so as vassals of Ottomans, but that unit was never used in combat operations - they probably served as hostages to guarantee Serbia's neutrality in the conflict.

As for putting Đurađ Branković as one of the leaders, that's simply inaccurate. The old despot of Serbia never came close to the site of the battle - he was at his capital Smederevo in 1453. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.173.105 (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The entire passage isn't credible sourced- the source is a broken web site link, and is cited repeatedly in this article.Mavigogun (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)