Talk:Fall of Constantinople

An event mentioned in this article is a May 29 selected anniversary.

comments

About Greece and Constantinople: Adam, how do you define "Greeks" in 1453? Would you say the Franks of those times have nothing to do with the French? Would you say that the Germans of the middle ages are not the direct ancestors of today's Germans? The term "Greeks" did not exist then either. "Greeks" comes from a turkish term ("graikoi", pronounced "greki") to show their scorn to their non turkic subjects. "Hellenes" however is more like it. That's why you may think that the "Greeks" of today are not descendants of the "Byzantines". If you use the term "Hellenes" it will make more sense. If you are ready to accept the definition given by Isocrates in the 5th century BC (Hellenes are those educated the Hellenic way) then the Byzantines were most definitely Hellened or Greeks, starting from the early years. So, Constantinople was not in "Greece", but it was most definitely "Hellenic" in the full meaning of the word, as much as we, the Greeks, are "Hellenes". I am a Greek and live in Greece. I can read and understand (more or less) Niketas Choniatis, Prokopios and Georgios Plethon Gemistos in the original. Most Greeks can. As they did at their time, we study our ancient philosophers. The Greeks, uninterruptingly for several thousands of years, have shared the same language, even under the long years of the ottoman rule. We have also inherited tradition, faith, culture. So, they were as Greeks as the moderns are, and they most definitely realised it. In fact they were more Greeks than us, since modern Greeks have been heavily influenced by Western culture, which was not the case at those times.--Spryom 16:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, "Greek" comes from an ancient term for some colonists in Italy. It's not Turkish at all. But I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to (and are you even addressing me, or another Adam? :)) Adam Bishop 16:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I am puzzled by the conjunction of the assertion that the "Byzantine state" of Trebizond held out until several years after the fall of Constantinople, and the statement that by 1453 the Byzantine empire consisted only of the capital city itself. Don't these two statements contradict each other? Michael Hardy 01:49, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, Trebizond was one of the places that set up an empire-in-exile after the Fourth Crusade. While Nicaea eventually took over the other exile states, and took back Constantinople itself, Trebizond never rejoined the empire and existed on its own until 1461. it had a different dynasty of "emperors", who were culturally Byzantine, but no longer connected to the empire. From 1261 to 1453, "the empire" refers to Constantinople and any territory it held, which by 1453 was just the city. Does that make sense? Adam Bishop 02:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

About the past couple of changes - I don't think we can say Constantinople was in "Greece"; the Byzantines certainly would not have thought so, and Greece as in the modern country didn't exist like that back then anyway. Also, the bit about changing the name to Istanbul is not really relevant here. The part about it being the "old" name is just wrong and I don't know where that came from. The Ottomans continued to call the city Constantinople until the 20th century. That Istanbul comes from "towards the city" isn't true either, it's just the way the Turks eventually pronounced "Constantinople" (a discussion of that is in the Istanbul article). Adam Bishop 04:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

How can the cannon have fired for 7 weeks if it collapsed after 6?

I suppose that what is meant in the text is that the cannons (in general) bombarded the walls for seven weeks. The giant cannon collapsed after six. —The Phoenix 18:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody know how many troops the trebizond empire had at the fall of trebizond that happened after the fall of constantinople

About historic accuracy.

The term Byzantine is a misnomer. The Empire was called Eastern Roman Empire. It was Christian in religion (with the exception of the Jews of course!) essentially Roman in its legislature and Hellenic in its literature/culture hence Hellenistic Greek was the official language. The term Byzantium was invented in late 17th century by Western Catholic priests/scholars(?) (i.e. Hieronymus Wolfe) who wanted (and to a certain degree succeeded) in erasing the terms Christian-Roman-Greek/Hellenic for purely political reasons.

One thing that really is pathetic is that the capture of "the Polis" sparked the Rennaisance. Now the Turks can safely take this and by the method of "historical extension" argue that Europe is their creation! Well done you "author".

Finally, "Istanbul" is the way the Ottomans/Turks understood the term "EES TEEN POLEEN" (phonetically) - "Εις την Πόλιν" (Greek - need greek encoding to view), which means "at" or "to the City" (observe the capitalization of City=Polis=Πόλις which is short for "Konstantinoupolis" the City of Konstantine (with "K" according to the correct Greek spelling).

"Keep reading and correcting, history is simply revisable!"

Dimitrios G.P. Historian

The Empire is called the Byzantine Empire by modern historians, because it is simply too confusing to continue to call it the Roman Empire, especially in the 15th century when it clearly has almost nothing to do with the ancient Roman Empire (they didn't call it "eastern" anyway, they just called it Roman). The creation of the term Byzantine is dealt with in the Byzantine Empire article, and is irrelevant here.

Is your second point a disagreement? I suppose by extension you could argue that the Turks helped spark the Renaissance. Surely you are not simply a stereotypical anti-Turk Greek?

Thirdly, as far as I am aware, the etymology of "to the city" is erroneous, and Istanbul is just a Turkish pronunciation of Constantinople. But that is dealt with in other articles as well. Adam Bishop 01:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A comment on Dimitrios G.P.'s second point: Did the fall of Constantinople spark the renaissance? I don't believe any historian would ever attribute an entire economic, cultural and social shift like the renaissance to one sole cause such as the fall of a city (and empire). But it doesn't take a lot to see that the Orthodox refugees fleeing from Constantinope to the Italian peninsula after the fall of the city brought new ideas -- and probably more importantly -- brought the memories of classical thought, law, and philosophy to Italy (particularly Ravenna). These at the very least awakened an intellectual curiosity amongst the increasingly well-off inhabitants of the emerging city states, which strongly supported the renaissance ("rebirth") of classical thought in the latter.

By the by, some historians have put as much importance for the triggering of the renaissance on the warming of the climate from about the 10th century (although the first half of 14th century was a particularly cold spell) as anything else. Who can tell? J.Bond

---

To be honest, I don't like the idea that the Fall of Constantiniople was the "end" of the Roman Empire. I mean, the Ottoman Empire was essentially the Byzantine Empire Islamicized, and Mehmed II didn't consider himself the exterminator of the Roman Empire- he considered himself to be a Roman Emperor. Plus the Ottomans didn't really gain a "state" until they took a Byzantine city, Bursa, thus they could be seen as "rebels" of Byzantium.-RomeW

Well, dates assigned as "the end" of something were rarely seen that way at the time, but this is a convenient date and one that is very widely used in historiography. To say the Ottomans were the "Byzantine Empire Islamicized" is a little strange...the Byzantine Empire was nothing if not Christian (remember how opposed they were to becoming even another kind of Christian!). Mehmed was as much of a Roman Emperor as Constantine IX - they might have thought they were, but that doesn't mean much, the Byzantine Empire is clearly different from the Roman Empire by this point. And how would the Ottomans be rebels by conquering a Byzantine city? Seems like a simple case of conquest to me. Adam Bishop 07:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm probably one of the few- if not the *only* one- to think this way, but I do have my reasons. Technically speaking, the Ottomans didn't have a state until they took Bursa- a Byzantine city (also, technically speaking, the Byzantines were Romans- after all, they did come from the Eastern Roman Empire). They also targeted Constantinople, the Byzantine capital, and eventually made it their own capital. It's almost like they immigrated to Byzantium and immediately revolted. Certainly the Ottomans didn't think of themselves as the ones who ended the Roman state- in fact, Mehmed's invasion of Italy in 1480 was because he wanted to reunite the Roman Empire. He didn't succeed and probably would have not, but it's still interesting that he thought of himself that way.-RomeW

If I don't make mistake Ottoman Turks have lived inside Byzantine empire until Ottoman has make deal with commander of Byzantine fort near them and revolted. In XVI and XVII century in many state there have not been name Turkish but Byzantine empire. Nostradamus are not speaking about Turks but Byzantium.

What Day?

It came to my attention that the date the Fall of Constantinople happened, was May 29 according to Julian and not Gregorian calendar. It was a Tuesday. Should the date change to June 7 or note the different calendar? --geraki 20:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The date should be the Julian calendar date, since the Gregorian calendar did not exist in 1453. The Julian calendar became the Gregorian calendar in 1582. So Julian dates are still valid before the switch. (Now, after the switch is where questions sometimes arise, since many countries didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until many years later.) --JW1805 23:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So it's a common practice to leave Julian dates as is. But in May 29, on top there is a note making it almost clear that dates shown are according Gregorian calendar. That can lead to a misunderstanding as May 29 1453 was a Sunday according to Gregorian calendar, although it is clear that Constantinople fell on a Tuesday. I'm not familiar in this, and we had this little problem in greek wikipedia, so do we or not mention the different calendar on this or other dates? --geraki 15:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing, but no changes are necessary on this or the May 29 page. May 29, 1453 was, in fact, a Tuesday. It is not necessary to specify which calendar was used. The Julian calendar ended in 1582, and the Gregorian calendar began. Ten days were deleted from the calendar, but the days of the week were not interrupted. Your confusion may arise because you have a day-of-week calculation algorithm where you input May 29, 1453, and the answer comes out as "Sunday", which is incorrect. Probably, your algorithm is blindly using the Gregorian calendar before 1582, which will result in an incorrect day of the week.--JW1805 16:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• We celebrate it on every May 29. I don't think that its that much important. With respect, resident of the Queen of the cities, Deliogul 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Conduct Following the Fall

The article was incorrect when it claimed that the sultan's troops refrained from the traditional practices after the fall. In actual fact Mehmed prohibited the soldiers from destroying any of the buildings whereas the people suffered terribly over the next few weeks. This is well documented and I contributed my sources and links. The books I have added are noted below however one of the authors apparently has an article on wikipedia that is linked to someone of the same name - who is not the author. - I will try to fix that at a later time.

An anonymous vandal "194.78.136.223" changed some of the description of the conduct of Mehmet II and his troops after the fall. I changed that back, reworded a lot of it and added my appropriate new sources building upon what I had written before. If somebody wants to start censoring my contributions in the future at least have the decency to remove the sources I have provided now and from before - otherwise you are simply altering the work of my authors while attaching their names and academic credibilities to a forgery. --141.195.143.145 23:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Format Problems

I reworked the references section to include "External Links" as well as Internal, unfortunately the actual internal references themselves are not showing up in the article despite the fact they are there when I edit - i'd like to keep internal and external sources seperate - we only have one external link (provided by me) and I want to encourage more - anybody know how to fix this strange error?

It's not an error, those were links to the article in other languages, and links for the categories, which appear at the side and the bottom of the page. They don't show up in the article itself. Adam Bishop 19:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

-

There're several mistakes in the article. First of all, Sultan Mehmed ordered his soldiers to not to give harm to the people and the buildings. Maybe you do not know, he was a very religious muslim but his mother was a christian and she was not forced to convert to Islam. After the conquer, none of the churches were destroyed. Some of them were converted to mosques, like Hagia Sophia which was a symbol of power more than a church, and they were regularly repaired.

Most of the Greeks living in modern Greece do not speak Turkish (except the people from Karaman) and they are not muslim. If the Ottoman Turks have wanted to change their religion and language they would do that easily during 600 years of occupation. However, our religion does not give permission to oppress people because of their nationalities and religions. That's why those guys are able to speak Greek and still have their lovely way of living. In the end the Greek culture and language was preserved. They are very lucky comparing to the Irish and Scottish people who can't even speak their languages.

the word "istanbul" comes from "islambol".. sultan mehmed 2 himself gave the city this name.. It's meaning is "full of islam".. and it was a true name because the following centuries it became the center of muslim world

According to historian İlber Ortaylı, Ottoman's used the word "Constantinia" as the name of the city in their written documents. I watched him explaining this topic on TV (in his programme about history on TRT 2).

Byzantine Empire

This is being actively edited right now, if anyone with an interest would like to contribute. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Crescent

On the night of May 22 there was a lunar eclipse, which must have seemed a bad omen to the defenders of the city.

Isn't this related to the legend (history?) on how a crescent became a symbol of Byzantium after an invasion attempt? Ironically, the crescent became the flag of the Ottoman Empire. FOTW has several conflicting explanations for the relations of crescents to Byzantium and the Ottomans.

Yes thats quite interesting. A likely explanation is that the crescent moon was by both sides seen as a good omen. However, the Turks won, and in later years would no doubt have later documented that it was a "bad omen". Besides, when the Ottoman kingdom was founded, apparently, according to legend, the first leader saw a crescent moon as a sign of future victory. So both sides saw it as a good omen. Ofcourse, if the siege lasts for almost two months, you're gonna see a crescent moon four times.Tourskin 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Preparation

In the section entitled Preparation I detected a certain ahistorical bias and I quote:

"Constantine appealed to Western Europe for help, but Pope Nicholas V was unwilling to support the Empire. Ever since the mutual excommunication of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches in 1054, the Roman Catholic west had been trying to re-integrate the east; the west now used this as a negotiating tactic, promising to send help if the Byzantines brought their church back into communion with Rome. Attempts had been made to do this after the Council of Florence and the Council of Basel, but the Orthodox population refused to support it. Pope Nicholas and many other western leaders made the decision not to support the Empire, although some troops did arrive from the city states of what today is the north of Italy."

this is an oversimplification. Union had been attempted before at Lyons in 1274 and,indeed, some Paleologan emperors had been received in the Latin Church since. Emperor John VIII had requested a Council in order to negotiate Union and this was held in Italy in 1439. In the ten years after the the Bull of Union was proclaimed in Florence, a massive propaganda initiative was undertaken by anti-unionist forces in Constantinople and the population was in fact bitterly divided. Latent ethnic hatred between Greeks and Italians stemming from the stranglehold the Italians had over the Byzantine economy and the sack of Constaninople in 1204 also played a significant role. Moreover, Pope Nicholas V did not have the influence the Byzantines thought he had over the Western Kings and princes; these had not the wherewithal to contribute to the effort, especially inlight of France and England being weakened from the 100 Years War, Spain in the middle of its Reconquista, the internecine fighting in the German Principalities and Poland-Lithuania's defeat at the the Crusade of Varna in 1444. Western military assistance was a case of "too late, too late."

You should fix it, as soon as you have some time. What you wrote here seems a good addition. GhePeU 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias check

Some historians suggest that the Kerkoporta gate in the Blachernae section had been left unlocked, and the Ottomans soon discovered this mistake (there was no question of bribery or deceit by the Ottomans; the gate had simply been overlooked, probably because rubble from a cannon attack had obscured or blocked the door). The Ottomans rushed in. Constantine XI himself led the last defense of the city, and throwing aside his purple regalia, dove headfirst into the rushing Ottomans, dying in the ensuing battle in the streets, like his soldiers.

1. Firstly who are these historians
2. Secondly who is suggesting bribary
3. Thirdly isnt there a better way to put the final assault? By diving head first we arent suggesting a nose dive as in nose diving to a swimming pool right?
4. Also I find the aftermath section less than neutral.
5. Is it really ok to referance to byzantians as "greeks"? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
   1. "Firstly who are these historians?" Steven Runciman, listed in the references, is the one I know best. I don't recall what he wrote about the Kerkoporta; I'll look this evening if I remember. You may be able to look at parts of it in Google Book Search as well. Other historians are listed in the references.
   2. "Secondly who is suggesting bribary?" An anonymous editor a few months ago wrote that Mehmed bribed the Jews to open the gates for him. (500 years later and we're still hearing, "The Jews did it." Sigh.) Others have suggested in the past that Loukas Notaras took or solicited a bribe to weaken the defenses, or was otherwise intentionally derelict.
   3. "Thirdly isnt there a better way to put the final assault? By diving head first we arent suggesting a nose dive as in nose diving to a swimming pool right?" Maybe 'Charging?' 'Running?' 'Advancing?' 'Attacking?' Which do you find most consistent with the historical references?
   4. Is the 'aftermath' section less than neutral? Well, medieval warfare was a brutal, non-neutral business, on both sides. We make it clear who is speaking, and present countervailing views to the extent that citations are available. What changes are you suggesting?
   5. "Is it really ok to referance to byzantians as "greeks"?" Yes, I think so. Why not? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      1. I think it should be made easier to find such referances with footnotes and {{ref}}/{{note}} structure linking to the book(s). We should avoid using weasle words.
      2. Then it serves to no purpose in the article in a form of a disclaimer and must go.
      3. Charge means attacking in the direction of the enemy so would be fine with me. Also Constantine XI himself led the last defense of the city, and throwing aside his purple regalia, dove headfirst into the rushing Ottomans, dying in the ensuing battle in the streets, like his soldiers. sounds a bit pov. What is the significance of a "purple regalia" to his last stance? Also him dieing [bravely] like his soldiers can be better expressed w/o like his soldiers part. It can simply be expressed that he "...was killed in the ensuing battle in the streets".
      4. Well, yes medeval war was brutal so it is not necesary to explain it on this article but perhaps on medeval warfare. So it is redundent to have a pov fork painting the enemy as "savages" when such practice was widespread at the time. Aftermath should be more about the historic implications rather than how horrible the invadors are.
      5. Not all of byzantians were of greek ethnicity. Article suggests soldiers from other nations came to help the war effort which were not greek. The were however under the command of byzantians. We talk about "greek muslims" as if no other ethnicity in the place was a muslim. Referncing to them as simply "muslims" or "Byzantian muslims" would be more factualy acurate. Same actualy goes for the Turk referance, not all ottomans were Turks article talks about Serbian sappers so such should be referanced as ottomans.
      6. What is the point of the footnote symbol (†) in the infobox? I want toreferance it with the ref/note structure but I dont know which footnote it refers to.
      7. Hope you dont mind my numbering of your comments.

         --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's Runciman, since he says the gate was opened after Giustiniani was wounded and needed to be brought back into the city. The Genoans then rushed the gate, thinking Giustiniani was retreating, and then Turks followed them (this is page 139 of The Fall of Constantinople 1453). In his notes on page 224 he says "only Ducas gives any detail of the entry through the Kerkoporta, but his story is briefly confirmed by Saad ed-Din." Adam Bishop 21:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

1. In the past there has been an effort to whitewash the brutality associated with the fall of the city. I neither want that, nor exaggeration. Some changes may be in order to strike the correct balance. More discussion of the historical consequences would be great. I would not welcome removal of verifiable cited material. I think to determine what's significant about the fall of Constantinople we need to look at what historians have chosen to write about it.
2. What is the significance of a "purple regalia" to his last stance? I'm not sure what you are asking here. Do you really not know the significance, or am I misunderstanding your question?
3. ...it is redundant to have a pov fork painting the enemy as "savages" I'm not sure what pov fork you are referring to. Is there another page about the fall of Constantinople? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
   1. Yes I relise that. All I want is to evade a white wash etc.
   2. I really do not know the significance. If it is significant enough for the mention in this article, I'd like it to have an article for ignorant idiots (ex: me). :)
   3. Err I used the wrong phrase. I ment to say needles description/whitewash

      --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Purple regalia" just means he was wearing his imperial clothes, and took them off to join the regular soldiers. It's significant, but it could be expressed in less flowery language. Adam Bishop 13:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps flowery. Is this worn over armour? I'm genuinly curious :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it may not even be true at all, but if it is I would imagine he was wearing a purple cape over his armour. Adam Bishop 20:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Porphyrogenitos was an imperial title. It means "born in the purple." Purple clothing and accesories could only be worn by the imperial family; purple-dyed silk was an imperial monopoly. Throwing away his purple cloak would have been like throwing away his crown. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We ought to have an article about Byzantian tradition. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok so do we have a working version? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Some historians suggest that the Kerkoporta gate in the Blachernae section had been left unlocked, and the Ottomans soon discovered this mistake (there was no question of bribery or deceit by the Ottomans; the gate had simply been overlooked, probably because rubble from a cannon attack had obscured or blocked the door). The Ottomans rushed in. Constantine XI himself led the last defense of the city, and throwing aside his purple regalia, dove headfirst into the rushing Ottomans, dying in the ensuing battle in the streets, like his soldiers.

---

A group of about fifty Turkish irregulars on patrol had found a small door in the wall, half-hidden at the foot of the tower and insecurely bolted. It was in fact a sally-port known as the Kerkoporta, through which the commanders of that particular section of the wall - three Genoese brothers called the Bocchiardi - had organized several effective raids on the Turkish camp. The bashi-bazouks had managed to force the door open, and had made their way up a narrow stair to the top of the tower. Such an action, with no army to give them support, was virtually suicidal; but in the confusion after the wounding of Giustiniani they encountered no resistance and were able soon afterwards to hoist a Turkish standard, leaving the door open for others to follow. It was almost certainly they, and not the Janissaries, who were the first of the besiegers to enter the city.

By now, however the Turks were pouring through the open breaches. Constantine himself, having seen the situation at the Kerkoporta was hopeless, had returned to his old post above the Lycus valley. There, with [some other leaders], he fought desperately for as long as he could to hold the gate through which Giustiniani had been carried. Finally, seeing that all was lost, he flung off his imperial regalia and, still accompanied by his friends, plunged into the fray where the fighting was thickest. He was never seen again. ^[1]

• ^ Norwich's Byzantium:The Decline and Fall

---

I am not too happy with the wording as its a bit flowery but I dont mind you guys cleaning it up and yes I copy pasted it from below. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My only concern is that it may be too much to quote directly. Here's a shorter summary:

Fifty Turkish irregulars on patrol found a small door insecurely bolted. It was a sally port known as the Kerkoporta. The Turkish soldiers forced the door open. Such an action, with no army to give them support, was virtually suicidal; but in the confusion after the wounding of Giustiniani they encountered no resistance and were able to hoist a Turkish standard, leaving the door open for others to follow. It was almost certainly they who were the first to enter the city.

The Turks poured through the open breaches. Constantine saw the situation at the Kerkoporta was hopeless. He fought as long as he could to hold another gate. Finally, seeing that all was lost, he threw off his imperial regalia and, accompanied by a few friends, plunged into the fray where the fighting was thickest. He was never seen again. ^[2]

• ^ Norwich's Byzantium:The Decline and Fall

I might cite Runciman as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Escapees

Referring to the city's defenders, the battle box says, "Entire garrison killed or captured". However, Runciman indicates that a considerable number of Italians and Greeks escaped by ship. He especially notes a group that held out after the city in general fell, and was given safe passage to the ships in exchange for ceasing their resistance.MayerG 00:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fom Norwich

This is from Norwich's Byzantium:The Decline and Fall:

An hour or so before [the Janissaries reached the inner wall], a group of about fifty Turkish irregulars on patrol had found a small door in the wall, half-hidden at the foot of the tower and insecurely bolted. It was in fact a sally-port known as the Kerkoporta, through which the commanders of that particular section of the wall - three Genoese brothers called the Bocchiardi - had organized several effective raids on the Turkish camp. The bashi-bazouks had managed to force the door open, and had made their way up a narrow stair to the top of the tower. Such an action, with no army to give them support, was virtually suicidal; but in the confusion after the wounding of Giustiniani they encountered no resistance and were able soon afterwards to hoist a Turkish standard, leaving the door open for others to follow. It was almost certainly they, and not the Janissaries, who were the first of the besiegers to enter the city.

By now, however the Turks were pouring through the open breaches. Constantine himself, having seen the situation at the Kerkoporta was hopeless, had returned to his old post above the Lycus valley. There, with [some other leaders], he fought desperately for as long as he could to hold the gate through which Giustiniani had been carried. Finally, seeing that all was lost, he flung off his imperial regalia and, still accompanied by his friends, plunged into the fray where the fighting was thickest. He was never seen again.

A description of the sack of the city follows, which I can include (subject to fair use) in as much detail as needed. It is grim stuff. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Article should be adjusted accordingly then. This detail would clairfy matters. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnote Solution

The wars of religion, at least the verbal variety, are alive and well on the wiki. This is a good thing. I have seen more honest discussion of hard topics between people of different minds than just about anywhere else. This wrangling if done with mutual respect stands to produce more than a good text. The process itself is formative and not just informative.

As the text wars are developing (see the section on Dhimmi) an important tool is become more and more useful: the footnote. the "Aftermath" section coud begin by saying that conflicting accounts have come down. The various accounts could be described with their origins attested to in a footnote (or in the text). If there are equally plausible accounts, fine. Let's just say so. However, with some responsible referencing to credible historians, legends and facts should sift out. War histories and battle accounts are often distorted from the outset, and some revisions of history come much later. We should be able to distinguish between these two phenomena.

The "greeting Mehmed with flowers" versus the "rape and pillage" accounts are so far apart they cannot be easily reconciled. One or both are likely distortions or legends. Someone among us ought to be able to find an historian who weighs both and intelligently reports the findings of his research. I will see what I can find on this topic this weekend.

OK, I'm off the platform. Also, while I am new to Wiki, I have reviewed the history of this article and am generally impressed with the patience and diligence of the some of you contributors and its nearly constant improvement. Padre J 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks

I have edited the above section because I felt it gives a slightly skewed and inaccurate description as to the behavior of the Turkish army after they breached the walls of the city. Far from being a ravaging horde of savages, compared to the prevailing habits of the day in the late middle ages in regard to captured cities, the Ottomans behaved with remarkable restraint. Yes, there was the initial slaughter and rape and pillage associated with such activities, but as I stated in amendment, Mehmet was more interested in establishing Constantinople as the seat of his goverment and had no desire at all of presiding over a burnt out wreck of a town. Despite his intentions, there was too much of that, which prompted his famous lament in the ruined halls of the Great Palace. However, in comparison to the depredations of the Crusading Christian army who devastated the city two hundred years before, the Ottomans look absolutely humane.

I don't care what they looked like comparatively, the addition I put in as a guest about the Turkish atrocities ending only after 24 hours is supported by the numerous academic links I added - some quoted nearly directly. If any of that part is edited out it compromises the sources - effectively saying something other than what they wrote which is academically immoral and legally questionable. As long as the sections I added there are left in tact I'm cool with it.--CurtissWarhawk 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All pillaging conquering armies will, well, pillage and conquer! That means conquering their wealth and in the case of rape, their bodies. As disgraceful as it is, its difficult to stop in war.Tourskin 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Numbers

Does anybody have the number of casualties. I think it would be valuabe in representing the battle. By the way has anybody else noticed that Byzantine military history is somewhat scarce in comperison to that of the western europeans?

Poorly equiped first lines of the Ottoman army were completely destroyed. On the other hand, European defenders of the city escaped before the fall and we can claim that Turkish main attack destroyed all the Byzantine soldiers(~4.000 troops). No one knows the exact number. With respect, Deliogul 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fall?

I realize this is a question of semantics. However, proper codes need to be observed if this page is to be a proper encyclopaedic article. The point is it is called "Fall of Constantinople". It could, by the same logic be called, "Conquest of Constantinople". It is quite a Euro-centric presupposition to call it the former. The solution is simple: call it "The 1453 Siege of Constantinople" or simply "The Siege of Constantinople".

I realize the reasoning behind the term "Fall". It signalled the end of the Byzantine Empire. The point is, however, that if the title under the Fourth Crusade article is "The Final Capture of Constantinople", this title should be changed to "The Final Final Capture of Constantinople". If a neutral POV is to be observed, it should be called, as I have said, "The Siege of Constantinople".

Yagiz Ozyol

Ideally, to match Wikipedia's naming conventions, Siege of Constantinople should be a disambiguation page (and someone should finally make a proper list of them), the current sieges of Constantinople page should be removed or redirected to the singular, and this one should be "Siege of Constantinople (1453)". I don't know why Turks would be so opposed to "fall" since it is just as much of a fall as it is to Europeans...in any case, the reason this article is so titled is because, firstly, it has "always" been like that (well, for four years or so), and secondly because that is what Runciman's book is called. Adam Bishop 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Since it is just as much of a fall as it is to Europeans". Well, that is exactly the reason why I suggested that "Fall" is Eurocentric. Considering historical representation, Anna Comnena called the Europeans Kelts and Latins, and used the generic term "barbarians" like Michael Psellus and like Heredotus before him. So if we are to observe all historians' views, technically, we can change all the European country names to "Kelts" or the entire Europe (or Asia for that matter) to barbarians. If it is a "fall", the "fall" suggests that it was conquered by those who are not "us" - the others. Suggesting the Turks are the "others", and Greeks are the "selfs" is Eurocentric, hence the suggestion to change the name to "The Siege of Constantinople (1453)", that is if a Neutral POV is to be observed.

Aside from the ridiculous PC nature of omitting 'Fall' from the name; Fall of Constantinople is the name of the event in English, not the 1453 siege of Constantinople. It is not the task of an encyclopedia to revise history or rename historical events; if you're desperate that us evil Europeans not call it the Fall of Constantinople then you have to change the way people refer to the event in the real world, Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for historical revisionism. Would you suggest likewise that we no longer call the Fall of Rome by that name? As that is insensitive to the Ostrogoths? I should imagine you probably wouldn't. Seek100 02:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Aw c'mon. Constantinople fell, did it not? If you're a Turk, it fell to your "self"; if you're a European or otherwise Roman nostalgic, it fell to the "others", and if you're anybody else, well, it fell anyway. Case closed. 70.81.180.42 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It fell. It sure in hell did not rise!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

---

The end of an empire is often called a "fall". Michael Hardy 23:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

LEGENDS

There are several urban legends circuating in modern Greece about the events during the fall of the city as the one mentioning the two priest that vanished withing Agia Sofia during the pillaging of the city. Will it be reasonable to incude a seperate section in the main article that will list these myths? Being Greek i can write some text regarding these urban legends regarding the amongs others the alledged last word of the greek empror, the legends regarding his return to reclaim the city , the legend of the monk with the half-fried fish ( this is a good one...) and the prophecy that the person to reclaim the city for the christian will be born with 6 fingers. I know that these are all folk stories but several other articles contain urban legends under headings like 'popular culture'.

I think that would be interesting. We already have "Down to the present day, many Greeks have considered Tuesday (the day of the week that Constantinople fell) to be the unluckiest day of the week." You could start with that and expand it into a section. It is necessary that everything be cited to reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly as i mentioned these are urbal legends that are cerculation amongst population in greece .i will not be able to provide any sources or references for these legends but i still will be able to come up with a list of them

We can't really have them in the article unless they can be cited. Sometimes folklorists collect these stories, or maybe academics studying literature. If you want, put the stories here on the talk page and maybe someone else will recognize them and know a source we can cite. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Runciman mentions a couple in his account of the Fall of Constantinople, ages since I have read it, but one is that some Priests gathered up their materials while conducting mass and 'dissapeared' into the Southern Wall of the Agia Sophia, and that they will return and resume the liturgy at the point it was interrupted (Norwich also mentions this as his account of the fall is basically a Surmization of Runciman's), another (not really a legend), is that many citizens late into the siege saw some lights from over the Golden Horn, many believed them to be an army of Hunyadi, but the lights dissapeared into the morning and it was never explained what they were - Other legends include the 'portents' of Constantinople's doom before the siege such as Earthquakes, and some kind of strange light eminating from the top of the dome of Agia Sophia, only to dissapear, many interpreted this as sign the holy ghost had left the city. That's all I can remember off the top of my head.

There are numorous poems about these legends, which can be found in any anthology of modern Greek poetry. The story of the marble Emperor should be written about. -Alexius Comnenus

There were far more than 80,000 Turkish Troops

Runciman says so, Treadgold says so - Turks are just trying to cover up the fact they won all their battles by strength of numbers.

Cite and reference, please. — Gareth Hughes 11:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see.... Steven Runciman (Fall of Constantinople)... Warren Treadgold (Byzantine State and Society)... George Sphrantzes (that's elementary) and on and on.

Why should I be explaining these things? They are elementary to anyone with a basic understanding of Byzantine History. The only reason complaints are made of 'exagerration' is because people can't fathom just how unprofessional the Turkish armies were compared to their European counterparts. Turks NEVER won a battle where they didn't have the numerical superiority.

This is trying to be an encyclopaedia. That means that you will have to provide page numbers and bibliographic details to back up what you say. It would also be handy to quote the relevant texts here. This is 'basic' and 'elementary' to academic writing. — Gareth Hughes 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, our anonymous friend, you cannot accept that the heroic Greeks would ever lose unless they were massively outnumbered by barbaric Turks. I don't know what the numbers were but I don't think anyone trusts you to change them. Adam Bishop 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how you use the word 'heroic' in a sarcastic mocking sense. Are you denying that Constantine XI was heroic? Are you insane or something? He was ten times more heroic than the fatty (lol!) sultan mehmet who never ONCE entered battle with his men. He died a true European and defender of the European race.

In any conflict, the attacker needs a three or four-to-one advantage to overcome a prepared defense. Both sides took advantage of their assets, and tried to exploit the weaknesses of their enemy. The Turks had numbers (and maybe higher morale), and the Greeks had fortifications (and relatively advanced technology). Neither side was stupid or cowardly. The Turks won. It was five hundred years ago. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Right my Greek hating friends, I've been through both Treadgold and Runciman again - And it appears the 80,000 number stems from the number of regular troops The Sultan had at his disposal, Treadgold mentions this on page 799 of his 'History of Byzantine State and Society', Runciman mentions it on page 77, I shall cite:

In probability, to judge from Turkish sources, the regular troops numbered some 80,000, excluding the irregulars, The Bashi-Bazouks, who may have added another 20,000 and non-combatant camp followers of whom there must have been several thousand.

Now, seeing as it is wikipedia custom to list logistical detachments as part of the actual army sizes (things would become too difficult otherwise), I propose we include the 'camp followers' as part of the actual army. The Navy's size, numbering some 150 ships (Runciman pages 76 - 77: Fall of Constantinople), should also be included, as the Genoese and Venetian sailors are included as part of the Byzantine total strength as well, according to the Census conducted by Constantine to check how many available men there were in the city of fighting age, there were just over 5000, add onto this some 700 genoese and 300 venetians (Treadgold again), and you arrive at a total strength of 6000.

Other sources such as Ducas list the size of the Ottoman Army at 400,000, Phrantzes at 262,000, Leonard of Chios at 315,000 and Barbaro (and most other Venetian sources) at 160,000 (or round an about that number). I therefore propose we give a minimum size of the Turkish Army and Navy at 150,000 (a very conservative estimate), and the Byzantines at between 6000 and 8000.

As people said above, whatever is included needs to be cited. Since there are a range of values, we might cite each end of the range rather than trying to agree on one average figure. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I have cited my sources, I said I would agree on a Conservative estimate of 150,000 Ottoman soldiers and Naval personnel, and 6000-8000 Byzantine soldiers and naval personnel. What is wrong with this? I have cited my sources!

You know, we probably are being a little too distrustful. I don't like 86.143.173.80's anti-Turk and anti-everything else edits, and using the numbers to make some stupid point, but these are the numbers Treadgold and Runciman give. (And which are much smaller than the numbers estimated by contemporary witnesses, so at least he is not insisting we use those.) Adam Bishop 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Erik Durschmied in the book hinges to battle cites the lifestyles of the Byzantine and the fact that out of a population of over 100,000 men around 7,000 volunteered. Secondly the extensive use of slaves and vagabonds by the Turks is not mentioned in this article and I believe that this is important.Kendirangu 06:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Volunteering soldiers? 100,000 people in the city? What is this, a giant playground? The city was about to fall to the enemy and most of teh defenders knew it. In all likelihood, there were roughly 5,000 men fit enough to hold arms. They were conscripted. Not that they would not have voluntered. The point is, the city was delapidated and had a population of only 60,000, hence the Turks after 3 days of looting and destrcution had left 30,000 untouched, since they were scattered throughout the city and all, and some surrendered early. The population of Byzantium had fallen greatly since 1204, the sacking of the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely incorrect

The one who wrote"there were far more than 80,000" is obiviously a racist, totally unexperienced or an Anti Turk. There were lots of battles when Turks were fewer than the other armies, and Mehmed II marched with his armies,"the Night Attack" is an example. You say they always outnumbered, it´s completely impossible since the europeans gahtered huge armies thorugh alliances. You cannot see the military strenght in one perspective, there were very strong soldiers in the Ottoman army, as well as those who weren´t as strong, all armies had strong and weak soldiers. The Turks were aggressive, and very strong warriors in overall picture, they didn´t outunumber their enemies in many battles. That´s the probelm with Wikipedia, people like this one who wrote this article writes fake history, and what they find most logical, so you can´t trust the history here.

A note....

When using Norwich as a source for the fall, it would perhaps be better to use Runciman instead, Norwich himself said that his account of the fall (in Byz. Decline and Fall) was a summary of Runciman's work.

Timeline Footer

i just saw that the timeline included in the page represents the rise and fall of the Ottoman empire. I strongly believe that a more accurate and strongly related timeline whould be the rise and fall of the byzantie empire or a timelie dipicting the foundation of the city and all the major historical events surounding the city like ;stasi tou nika' and the fall of the city to the crusader. I believe that the timeline should end at 1453 as this article relates to the history of the city prior to the fall to the turks and not the rise and dissolution of the ottoman empire

Agree. Having agreed however, the Ottoman empire had a habit of making its next capital the city closest to its enemies. Constantinople was the last capital. The Turks had changed their capital several times from Bursa, Nicaea and then finally Constantinople. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.103.68 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

New image

Hi. The famous picture from Voyages d'Outremer of Bertrandon de la Broquière is now available : Image:Siege of Constantinople BnF MS Fr 9087.jpg. Regards. --NeuCeu 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey naughty people!

Please discuss before changing the numbers on the page. Many sources agree that the Byzantines consisted of 7,000 soldiers in total, of whom 2,000 where Genose, Ventian and a few Spanish mercenaries. If you believe it to be 5,500 soldiers in the battle, then show your proof in the discussions page. But discuss it first! Tourskin 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The census taken of which Phrantzes talks about lists 4000 Byzantine troops. Runciman gives a number of 1000-1500 Italian allies. This is referenced in Treadgold as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.172.117 (talk • contribs)

The Byzantine historian Ducas gives the figure "not more than 8,000" for the whole army of the besieged (Byzantine + allies), in his work Historia Turco-Byzantina, XIV. Sphrantzes, who was the logothete of the Byzantine Emperor and hence also had "logistic" duties during the siege, registers the exact figure of 4773 Greek troops in his Chronicon (35, 6). Ekrenor 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Breaking up the article with more sections

I recently read an excellent book, 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West by Roger Crowley (2005 Hyperion Books). I realized a few things from that book, that this Wikipedia article is leaving out a lot of material, and that it simplifies the siege by having one section dedicated to entire siege.

In fact, the momemtum swung between the defenders and besiegers with several important assaults and contests before the final assault on May 29th. I propose that we break the article up into sections based on important dates in the siege. For example we could have section on April 12-18 (the first major Ottoman assault on the walls) and May 24-29. This was the format Crowley used in his book to good effect. --Bulgaroctonus 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

I removed the following from the campaign box: "many civilians (including several thousand nuns raped or killed) " and replaced it with "approximately 4,000 civilians". My reference is Crowley, unable to give the English version's page number, but check the end of section XIII. I felt a need to check this particular quote upon seeing it in the article's history since I found it extremely surprising that several thousand nuns existed in a city that had been de-populated to 50,000 just before the siege. Crowley gives the total number of civilians killed during the sacking of the city as 4,000. --Free smyrnan 21:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The true point is not what Crowley writes, but which are Crowley's sources. Sources for this event are extremely variable (and unreliable) when it comes to numbers; even eyewitnesses, for example, give wildly inconsistent figures for the strength of the Ottoman army and fleet (as I reported in the section Preparation); for the casualties the situation is analogous. I presume that Crowley is referring to what the byzantine historian Critoboulos of Imbros writes in his De rebus per annos 1451-1456 a Mechmete II gestis, i.e. 4,000 people in total were killed in the battle and in the taking of Constantinople, while 50,000 citizens and 500 soldiers were taken as prisoners (De rebus per annos..., 67, 4); note that Critobulus before giving these figures explicitely states as they say, since he was not present at the siege of Constantinople. About the nuns, it is true that in Constantinople there were many people living monastic lifes, however thousands really looks like an hyperbolic expression; acts of brutality of this kind, however, are clearly reported in most sources, including the Turkish ones (cardinal Isidore of Kiev and archbishop Leonardo di Chio, who were clergymen, give the most vivid account of these atrocities, in very emphatic terms and also reporting episodes which are surely spurious, i.e. completely invented, typically with the purpose of showing the alleged inhumanity and cruelty of the sultan Mehmet II himself). Ekrenor 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

End of the Middle Ages

I added this sentence in the introduction. It's the generally agreed date for this. SmokeyTheCat 11:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, considering that the renaisance is thought to have occured as a result of the influx of Greeks escaping the Ottomans and bringing with them classical philosophy, mathematics and science.Tourskin 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thessalonica

How were the Byzantines able to "recapture" Thessalonica? I assume that the city fell to either the Bulgarians, Serbs, or the Ottomans (when Adrianople was taken?). Perhaps during the Ottoman interrgum? Tourskin 02:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Myth is a myth

The Ottomans did close trade routes to Asia ; they were only kept open for the French. Tourskin 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)