Talk:Fall of Constantinople/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Constantinopolis < Istanbul

Regarding the renaming of Constantinople to Istanbul

It is highly unlikely that the appellation Istanbul is derived from a Greek phrase meaning to the city. It is much more likely to derive from a Turkish corruption of the name Constantinopolis itself. If one examines the key phones of the word Con-stan-tino-pol-is (separation is not meant to be morphological or semantic here, but phonemic), we can see that -stan- and -pol- relate directly to the -stan- and -bul- of Istanbul. Some phones have been lost in the corruption, but this is normal. A comparable instance is the word admiral in English which is a corruption from the original Arabic. This would also explain why the name Istanbul did not appear until hundreds of years later, as it takes a long time for a corruption to become accepted standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.10.43 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC) what about the version "ISLAMBOL" which was later changed into Istanbul by secular governor of modern Turkey! Please make a research before you put any idea to the wikipedia...

Actually, the origins of the term "Istanbul" are present already in Arab writers: Al-Masudi in the 10th century records that the Byzantines called the city "Bolin" (i.e. Polis, "City"), and said "estin bolin" ("to the City") when they referred to it. [1] Constantine ✍ 20:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, the word Istanbul is a corruption of the "to the city" name used before the fall of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.181.253 (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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) Ditto, Adam's right: "Greek" is what the Romans, from very early on, came to call the Hellenes in southern Italy (in Magna Graecia) and hence all the Hellenes.

sure its noot turkish, turks use Rum for citizens of Rome (eastern in this case), but also Yunan(is turkic for Ion which is a hellenic nation name) for the mainland greeks,(for cypriots, inner anatoilan roman citizens who were in fact hellenised during 7th century AD, term is used as Rum referring they are not Ions) about easter roman empire? cant you notice from its name that it is not greece, greece( in this case ionia) was just a small region of the empire which in fact is only a part of the greater roman empire , which was founded by latins not hellens, also in that empire many other ethnicities were living ,(slavs and turks were most populated in balkany and semitics and caucasians were on asia) probably hellenic speakers were less than %15 of total population of the whole empire at its greatest extend... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.224.148 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the worst articles in Wikipedia

This article contains nothing but fake sources, or Greek patriotic sources. New researches shows that the Turks never managed to gather such huge army since they waged so many wars before the siege. Historians now estimates that the Ottoman numbers were about 30,000. It also shows that the Greeks were about 30,000 as well, no team had any numerous advantage, only skill and bravery caused the result. The causalties remains unknown, but the historians believe that most Greek defenders were killed. But many survived as well, since they surrendered, and accepted the Sultans demands.

I am not sure whom I am reacting to here, as the lay-out of the page is getting messed up, but a quick reaction: a.f.a.i.k. it is a well-known axiom among strategists that you don't attack a fortified city when the defenders are numerically equal to your own forces; this would amount to suicide. And Constantinople was well fortified indeed. Iblardi 14:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As much as I admire and respect Ottoman military strength of the day, I have to agree with Iblardi; utterly impossible for the Christians to lose the city if their numbers were equal to the Ottomans. Even if the majority of the Byzantine defenders would've been militia, disillusioned by rumors of a massive force 100 times its actual size, the Ottomans still lost a lot of people, and if they had only started with 30,000, they would have been annihilated later on in the cleanup of the Byzantines, and dealing with the Hungarians, Bulgarians, Serbs, everyone from all directions gunning for them. AndarielHalo (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is terrible, and it's a shame that this gets featured on the front page of Wikipedia today. I read through a few paragraphs of this and already find two highly questionable statements:

On 22 May, the moon rose in eclipse prophesying the fall of the city

The people in Constantinople may have believed this to be so, but a lunar eclipse is not a prophecy of anything. It is a perfectly normal, scientifically explainable event. This line speaks of the alleged prophecy as if it were a real fact. The city fell because Mehmed II's army overwhelmed the defenders, not because of the eclipse.

This battle marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, an empire which had lasted for over 1,100 years.

Interesting to say the least, since no country calling itself the "Byzantine Empire" has ever existed. The battle marked the end of the Roman Empire, which had by this time existed for more than 1,400 years as an empire, and as a nation-state for more than 1,900. I realize that the general rule here is to follow convention where the silly anachronism "Byzantine Empire" is used, but in this case it flies in the face of the real facts. Jsc1973 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Trebizond

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)

Don't forget the Morea in peninsular Greece as well.--JonnyLightning (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Was Constantinople in Greece?

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)

This is a late reply, so its not to you, but Byzantium was considered part of Thrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.215.186 (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory cannon

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)

The cannon was fitted with iron hoops after the collapse and pressed back into service for a short time, but Orban considered continued fire with it risky so they eventually abandoned it.--JonnyLightning (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Trebizond Empire

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.

I would say it did end, because Mehmet wasn't a Roman. He did not grow up in the Roman state, nor did was he chosen by Romans or apart of a Roman dynastic family. A conquest by him was a conquest by a foreigner, and it ended the Roman Empire entirely. Despite being culturally different, the Greeks of the east were still Romans, there was never any break in the government, just subtle change from within.--JonnyLightning (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Mistakes

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).

The supposed derivation of the name Istanbul from Islambol is linguistic nonsense. In derivation, phones are often lost or morph, they are never added from nothing, so how would we explain the -t- of Istanbul? The name derives from a corruption of the word ConSTANTinoPOLis itself. Remember that vowels change over time and that consonants can readily become voiced or unvoiced (eg: b/p, f/v). T A Francis (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonesense, these sources:

• Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley.
• Madden, Thomas (2005). Crusades The Illustrated History. Ann Arbor: University of Michiga P.
• Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford UP.

All say that the city was sacked to some extent.

Religious muslim or not, Christian wife or not (who most definately converted to Islam anyways), The Qu'ran permits a conqueror to pillage a city for three days, as the above sources testify. Wikipedia is not the place for opinions, its for academic facts. Tourskin 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, he says mother of the Sultan (or Valide Sultan), which in the case of Mehmed II was Hüma Hatun, although I could not determine whether she was a Christian or a Muslim. Secondly, you have made a very bold claim in saying that "The Qu'ran (sic) permits a conqueror to pillage a city for three days" - please quote the relevant verses from the Quran or kindly detract these allegations. - Anonymous 03:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.25.236 (talk)

I don't have my Quran with me, since I'm at work. However, I did find a quote from The Ottoman Empire, by Halil Inalcik, p.26, The sultan did not wish for the sack of his future capital, but the Religious Law required him to grant three days of pillage. The city had been taken by force and, therefore, according to the seriat, movable property was the lawful booty of the soldiers and the population could be legally enslaved. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

The defenders saw the sickle moon as a bad omen, because it was the result of a lunar eclipse and thus, in their eyes, showed up mysteriously one night. Despite the crescent also being a symbol of the city, most of the citizens more readily associated it with the invaders.--JonnyLightning (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2009 (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)

You're thinking of the 5th Military Gate, where Giustiniani and the Emperor were based. The Kerkoporta was left open by the Bocchiardi brothers, who were making various sorties against the Ottomans from the semi-hidden gate.--JonnyLightning (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2009 (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. ^[2]

• ^ 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. ^[3]

• ^ 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)

Several archers from Sfakia managed to go back to crete carrying the flags and other symbols of the empire. They were isolated in a tower for days, Mehmet could not stand such a humiliation and he told them to leave the town untouched. 400 of the 700 archers that arrived from Sfakia left for the island —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.228.229 (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2007 (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).

Ha, ha ,ha. Very historically accurate. Well let me tell you in fact, it did rise. --Eae1983 (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The end of an empire is called a `fall`; that is true, but then the title should be "Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire". It is not the empire the article talks about but the event. Moreover, Eae1983 is right, historically speaking the city "did rise" anyway, since it became again the capital city of a world empire. Besides, it is exactly the objective of an encyclopedia or any tool claiming to be so (like wikipedia) to revise and rename, if necessary, any inaccuracy in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.28.17 (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion ended a long time ago, as you can see by the fact that even the thread before yours (which was a new entry) ended months ago. The city fell to the Ottomans. What happened to it afterwards is the concern of other articles.Gabr-el 16:56, 17 October 2008 (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.

-We won so much wars with 1000 man to 50 000.We thought we must write true things.I am a Turk.Please look Plevne war,we lost but russian tsar congurulate our general 2 times.Thougt that turks are good in war,yes thats right.We helped Renesaince.Yes,far more than turkish troops.Dont look your books.Because that years,i mean 1400s,europeans have turkofoby and they hate us.That time they did some bad things.Please look our turk books.We always write trues.I know there are far more than 80 000.--81.214.78.174 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC) so what do all these proove about casualities of the siege, and... how many western mercenaries were fighting on OTTOMAN side plus how many MUSLIM turks were defending constatinople are you going to add these, and about your question, first read some wars on wikipedia then if you do not trust those books(neither i do) you will have the impresseion, and thinking a crusade(lets call battle of varna, of course christian army would be superior in numbers but those days technology was making more difference than today (just during first years of Murad II magyars develepped light cannons pulled by horses which gave them field advantage which soon caused thousands year old turkic war tactics to change dramatically, or in case of naval wars the 2 great ottoman victories agains superior and better equipped catholic navies (which are also terrorising american shores at those days) are won only by techological advancement of turkish navy (longer range and lighter cannons which allowed them the first ever naval barrage, in fact there are few wars that turks won while they are outnumbering the hostiles,and usually against rulers of iran or egypt , lost many battles to the small western nations nations (albanians and vlachs for example) while superior in both numbers and technology...

If you have references to reliable sources that have lower numbers, you can add the information with proper citations, or ask on this talk page for someone to do it (use the + tab on top to start a new section at the end, so it will get noticed). Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We cannot add content to the encyclopedia (and in particular not if it contradicts referenced content) because you or any other user knows it is true. We must have sources.  --Lambiam 11:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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. I have studied about the siege of constantinople for a long time, and I will continue and write an article based on Real history.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hadilen (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

You of course, with no references and with your bold declarations of racism must be absolutely correct then? Don't kid ur self, the Ottomans had a massive domain from which to raise many men.Tourskin 03:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is absolute in history. Except this rule itself.Tourskin 03:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Greek troops, not including the Italians, who did send roughly 26 ships I believe.Tourskin 03:55, 24 July 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)

Thessalonica was recaptured by the Despotes of Epirus in 1224 if I remember correctly. What's to dispute there? Miskin 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I found it. Thessalonika was lost by Byzantium during the civil war but regained during the ottoman civil war.Tourskin 03:56, 24 July 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)

Quite possibly, but the edit is unencyclopedic and needs to be sourced. Miskin 01:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourced (though not that caveat regarding the French, in fact I haven't heard that before—which is not to say it isn't true).--Xiaphias 04:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason I removed the ridiculous numbers on the Ottoman losses. Miskin 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The French were allied to the Turks in their wars against the HRE which was guarding Europe's south east border. Both powers wished to attack and conuer Italy as well. I also saw it either here or somewhere that the French were given tax free trade in return. Tourskin 05:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dissolved v Destroyed

To say that the Byzantine Empire was "dissolved" implies that it naturally dissipated as an indirect or tangential result of the city's fall. This is not the case; the fall of constantinople destroyed the Byzantine Empire. --Xiaphias 03:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your definition. 'Destruction' usually applies on material objects, whereas 'dissolution' is frequently used in such context. Also the 'Easter Roman Empire' is not the most widely or best descriptive name. That's just the translation of the Empire's Greek name, but not the name scholars use today. Why not use "Greek Empire" which was the Latin name? Or why not "Romania", which was the vulgar Greek name? Because we have to use modern terminology, it was coined for a reason. Miskin 04:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Byzantium is the wrong name for that empire, or that part of the greater imperium romanum , it has been invented long after the last capture of its capital, schoolars also in turkey uses this name but it is only funny even the city name byzantium was un known to most of the empire citizens they were usuing konstatinpolis, after the emperor who declared the city byzantium as the nova roma (the new rome), so if choolars want to use byzantium for eastern empire, they have to use ravenna( or latin equvalent) for western empire, and about dissolution of the rome , it must be dated to 1467, capture of trabezond which was still marking the borders of imperium romanum, of course self earned claims of ottoman rulers as kayser-i rum (empire of rome) can also be discussed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.224.148 (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to argue over nomenclature, but three of Dictionary.com's five definitions for the word 'destroy' seem appropriate:

 2. to put an end to; extinguish.  
 4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.  
 5. to defeat completely.  

Alternatively, these are the relevent (i.e., non-literal) interpretations of 'disolve':

 3. to undo (a tie or bond); break up (a connection, union, etc.). 
 4. to break up (an assembly or organization); dismiss; disperse.
 7. to separate into parts or elements; disintegrate. 
 6. to bring to an end; terminate; destroy: to dissolve one's hopes.
 8. to destroy the binding power or influence of: to dissolve a spell. 
 12. to disintegrate, break up, or disperse. 
 13. to lose force, intensity, or strength. 
 14. to disappear gradually; fade away.

Though #6 is an apt description, most of these allude to a 'breaking up' rather than a 'destroying' action, which isn't as appropriate IMO. I would consider using the quintessentially-neutral "end", but this doesn't seem to sufficiently convey gravitas (nor external causality).

For comparison's sake, a Google search reveals 90,000 instances of the phrase "destroy the byzantine empire", but no results for "dissolve the byzantine empire"; there are 40,000 results for "end the byzantine empire" (though more results for 'ended' than for 'destroyed').

With regard to the second point, I think Eastern Roman Empire is its most widely-recognized title, the one which ties it to its Roman (political) heritage; some scholars argue that Rome fell long before 1253, but no one discusses any date after this, making it the last-possible end-point of the Roman Empire. I feel that it's worth alluding to this in the intro paragraph; but if others don't agree, than I'm fine with changing it back -- it's a subjective evaluation. --Xiaphias 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... Where to begin with? First of all, your google search returned a great amount of links from wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors, something which does not count as a result. Secondly, the string into question does by no mean reflect upon your assumption. "The Angeloi dynasty destroyed the Byzantine Empire" would also be returned as a result of that querry. As for "Eastern Roman" vs "Byzantine" empire, I'm sorry, but to question the popularity of the latter over the former is almost laughable. To say that "some scholars believe that the Roman Empire fell much earlier" simply contradicts the foundations of Western historiography as it exists today. So please, per WP:NOR you should make the right adjustments in the article. Miskin 05:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] Are you arguing that all 90,000 results are Wikipedia mirrors? If not, I fail to see your point. Your sole argument was:

  'Destruction' usually applies on material objects, whereas 'dissolution' is frequently used in such context.

...and this Google search disproves that.

[2] Sorry if I wasn't clear – I agree that historians use the term 'Byzantine' more often than the term 'Eastern Roman'. What I meant was that 'Eastern Roman' is more easily recognizable. Though there are many people who aren't particular familiar with the Byzantine Empire, I'd wager that most people can attach significance to the Eastern Roman Empire. And, as I mentioned, this ties in the Roman heritage, and thus the broader importance of the 1453 siege. --Xiaphias 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'destroyed' vs 'dissolved' is a matter of personal opinion which can be determined only by a consensus, so there's no point wasting time over it. The 'Byzantine' vs 'Eastern Roman' however is a matter of WP:ATT. "Eastern Roman" is by no means more easily recognisable, in fact I was about to say that it's misleading to someone who isn't perfectly familiar with the subject at hand. The "Eastern Roman Empire" story deserves to be mentioned and explained once in Byzantine Empire, then it should be dropped. There's no point in using it in other articles as if it were a standard name. Wikipedians are not entitled to judge which name is better than which, they are obliged to use the existing, established terminology, therefore your argumentation on this topic is unnecessary. Miskin 06:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that you have assigned your own importance to the siege and you wish to pass it onto the reader. This is exactly meant I meant by quoting WP:NOR: wp is not a publisher of original thought. I'm changing it back. Miskin 06:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Please, show me what I've written that you feel is "original research" and I'll cite a published source.--Xiaphias 07:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to user "Easter Roman Empire" as a standard name for Byzantium, especially after the post-Heraclian era, and especially during its late era, where there was hardly anything Roman about it. This is not a popular practice in modern historiography, that is all. I have supported your edits in other articles, I'm just speaking here the honest truth. Miskin 10:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are all incorrect, cos the Empire lived in as Trebizond. Haha !!!Tourskin 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople and Renaissance

I quote from the first section of the article:

"Most importantly, the event triggered a scholarly exodus of Byzantine Greeks which caused the influx of Classical studies into the European Renaissance."

To back this up, a reference is given to Runciman's work. However, Runciman actually says (Fall of Constantinople, 1965, p. 188 (my italics)):

"It is easy to maintain that in the broad sweep of history the year 1453 stands for very little. The Byzantine Empire was already doomed. (...) The notion of Byzantine scholars hurrying to Italy because of the fall of their city is untenable. Italy had for more than a generation been full of Byzantine professors; and of the two great intellectual figures amongst the Greeks living in 1453 the one, Bessarion, was already in Italy and the other, Gennadius, remained on at Constantinople."

Runciman then goes on to stress the historical importance of Byzantium in preserving the learning of Classical culture. I can not see how Runciman's remarks can be reconciled with the above sentence. Now, we could adjust the passage accordingly, but I think it would be better if we delete it altogether; to my opinion, a comment on Constantinople's importance (or on the importance of an exodus of Byzantine scholars during the empire's decline), while legitimate, would be more in place in an article on Byzantium in general. Iblardi 12:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Errr, this is actually taken almost directly... Quoting Runciman's preface:

While their victory ensured the Turks' survival, the conquest of Constantinople marked the end of Byzantine civilization for the Greeks, by triggering the scholarly exodus that caused an influx of Classical studies into the European Renaissance.

I'm really surprised that you are questioning such a fundemental historical concept - Britannica has even got an article entirely devoted to it. Also, Iblardi, you recently received a warning in your Talk page about staying away from articles that I'm editing, due to your history of WP:Stalking... Please, unless you have a non-trolling comment to make to make, do stay away. Miskin 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, my remark was addressed to no-one in particular. I think it is obvious that you don't have to react if you don't want to.

Regarding the matter at hand: Runciman does not say anything like that in his preface; if he did, he would be contradicting himself. The phrase you quote is found as a book description on several websites. However, in the preface, Runciman does say:

"Byzantine learning played its part in the Renaissance; but already for more than half a century before 1453 Byzantine scholars had left the poverty and uncertainty of their homeland to seek comfortable professorial Chairs in Italy, and the Greek scholars that followed them after 1453 came for the most part not as refugees from a new infidel rule but as students from islands where Venice still was in control." (p. xi)

No-one in his right mind would deny that an exodus of Greek scholars in the last centuries of Byzantium had its influence on the Renaissance. I don't see what "fundamental historical concept" I am questioning when I quote Runciman saying that it was not the fall of Constantinople itself that triggered that exodus. Iblardi 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This can be verified also in Amazon.com [4], check under "Editorial Reviews". If it's an editorial review and not a preface, then it isn't less reliable. In any case this impact does deserve to be mentioned both in here and in the article of Byzantium. You cannot remove this edit in any reasonable grounds. It may be more specific to say that the exodus started off as a result of the fall of the Byzantine Empire, an period which reached its peak at the fall of Constantinople. If you want to add precision to the article then by all means do so within context, but you have no reason to remove this from this article, claiming that the exodus had nothing to do with the conquest of the City. The exodus is widely linked to the fall of Constantinople, whether this is 100% precise or not is irrelevant, wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Adding precision is one thing, removing well established claims because in your opinion they contradict other established claims is not acceptable as a practice. And please stop following me around, consider this a warning. Miskin 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) I provided an excellent source: no original research.

(2) I have not removed anything from the article; I made a proposal on this page.

(3) Do not threaten me or try to bully me into avoiding editing articles for the sole reason that you are one of the contributors. Iblardi 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Read my last edit more carefully to get your answers for 1 and 2. As for 3, it's just too hard to believe that you show up every time shortly after my arrival. Every single time, what a bloody coincidence. To me and at least to other two people to whom I've shown your editing habits, your arguments are not very convincing. So the warning stays. Miskin 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To concentrate on contents: I actually think your "...the exodus started off as a result of the fall of the Byzantine Empire, a period which reached its peak at the fall of Constantinople" is more fitting. Iblardi 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to rephrase accordingly. Miskin 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I propose the following rephrasing (maybe a bit cumbersome, it may need some reworking):

"The fall of Constantinople is commonly associated with a scholarly exodus of Byzantine Greeks which caused the influx of Classical studies into the European Renaissance. However, it would be more correct to say that the decline of Byzantium, which culminated in the fall of the capital city, caused such an exodus, which contributed significantly to the knowledge of Classical texts in Western Europe."

We can give a reference to both Runciman and the Wiki article on the Renaissance, where something similar is stated (i.e. "The decline of the Byzantine Empire after 1204 - and its eventual fall in 1453 - led to an exodus of Greco-Roman scholars to the West. These scholars brought with them texts and knowledge of the classical Greek and Roman civilizations which had been lost for centuries in the West" - although I must say I find the wording "Greco-Roman scholars" somewhat peculiar). Iblardi 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, except the "Greco-Roman" part as you pointed out. It reminds more of Plutarch and Cicero rather than the Byzantine Greeks. Besides after 1453 the Byzantines become simply Modern Greeks. Also the "Classical Roman civilisation" is a read herring - it is absurd to claim that the Latin knowledge was lost in the West and survived in Byzantium, where Latin wasn't even spoken. It was the Greek texts that were lost because the majority of them was never translated into Latin or Arabic. Those elements strike as original thought and need to be corrected. Miskin 09:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Romans shouldn't be in there. After your edit, however, there were two different rephrasings in the article. How about this for a compromise: we keep your rephrased version and put some good ol' footnotes around it to explain differences of view. :) Iblardi 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your rephrasing. I left a comment about this in the renaissance article but no one seems to care. Miskin 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe I gave the reference some time ago when i was 'wikifying' the article, I noticed the mention of Byzantine influence upon the Renaissance and simply gave Runciman as a source. I have actually stated on other pages I have mentioned Iblardi's point, which seems to be that there was not so much of a 'flood' of Byzantine scholars as there was a 'trickle' of them to the West. A lot seem to have taken up positions in Italian universities throughout the 13th century especially. However, the barbarism of the Turk's seems to have impacted upon this exodus as well although there wasn't a flood as such. Also, I've added Pears as a reference for 10,000 civilians being killed, The Turks were and still are notorious for this kind of thing, I've actually read a really good paper from the 19th (around the time of the Bulgarian atrocities) century arguing that the reason the Ottoman Turks were so barbaric is because their culture does not value life as much as western cultures do and as such it's not so much that they are 'bloodthirsty' in any malicious way, simply that like a lion or tiger, they dont really care about how many innocents they kill.--NeroDrusus 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek lies never cease the amaze me, even at wikipedia. It seems to me that even wikipedia is not safe from them. Wikipedia should be purely informative online encyclopedia and not a mouthpiece for greek nazis. First of all the population of constantinople in 1453 was not more then 45000, thanks to the latin invasion of 1204. The Ottoman army besieging constantinople was not larger then 60000 about a third of that were europeans (slavs, germans, poles and italians). Even at their height during Suleyman the magnificent the Ottoman army was not larger then 100000. Greeks are known for their dramatizations, the poster above truly shows that he is a greek. Orrin_73 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Decisive Ottoman victory"

Defeating an defensive force that numbers at least over eight times less than the attacker on the last ground of the defender is hardly "decisive". Regards, --Kurt Leyman 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Decive ... is it sane to discuss about the result of the siege, and dont forget the walls of constatinople , which hold avars, huns, bulgars, and slavs for centuries, and about the casualties, if you consider the casualties as a result makes, then germany is the decisive winner of the ww1 esp normandy( which in fact was a race between west and soviets to reach berlin first) caused to 2x allied lives than germans even post-landing, casualties mean few in wars, till the time of alexander (he didnt mind casualties and marched directly to the presian emperor twice and won those battles decisively, most of the persian casualties occured after battle pursues), About the numbers givven here, tohose are too funny, 80 000 to 4000, even town militias had to be more crowded in any town of that empire , and after the heavy bombard of the walls, battle turned out to be street fight, 1 more note, its noted taht western mercenaries,(probably franks)were sent to their doom in the first week of the battle by mehmed II just to get rid of those almost all have attacked the well defended walls none survived, that helped him to control the army easily after the capture, so that he could manage the safety of the city by getting rid of the western raiders and capturşng the city just before the muslim holy day, even the gold in the churches still survive to this day which must be the prime targets of a conquering army(as done by catholics 2 hundred years ago) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.224.148 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "Battlefield" terminology is odd in this context. Iblardi 16:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, try to find Ottoman losses if possible. Some people might get wrong impression of the battle, ala; "overwhelming Ottoman force slaughtering the defenders while suffering minimal losses themselves", which is not true. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, the victory was decisive as Constantniople was of great strategic value. It may have cost many lives but the result was a decisive Ottoman victory. The city was mucho important both physically and spiritually - the Islamic Prophet Muhammad stated that it would be " a great man" or a "great day" when Constantinople or Rome fell.

World War 2 was a decisive victory for the Allies, but it was by no means a one-sided conflict.

There are many circumstances where a decisive defeat can be inflicted despite heavy casualties.

How about "Costly Decisive Ottoman victory?" Or how about just leave it as decisive and let the reader know the numbers. Any suggestions? Tourskin 05:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact it was very decisive because it led to the fall of the Empire and now the Turks no longer had a magnet for the Crusaders to invade into Turkish territory. It was very deicisive. Give me your counter points in 48 hrs, or give me death or else I will change it back to decisive.Tourskin 05:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with calling the seige victory decisive. How costly it was is irrelevant. Argos'Dad 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Its not how costly the battle was but how decisive the vcitory or end result is in a war. Omaha beach was very costly but it was nonetheless a decisive Allied victory leading to the liberation of Europe.

You clearly misunderstood me. I only asked people to try and find Ottoman casualties if possible, nothing else.

"it led to the fall of the Empire" An empire only by its name. A nation that controls little more than its capital city and which by the time is both economically and militarilly weak. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 22:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The city itself is not the only prize. It was a psychological blow and from there on no more Crusades would be launched against the Ottomans in an offensive manner, only defensive manner. The results of the fall were decisive. You cannot simply say that the city fell and that is all. Yes the Empire was very weak at the time but history had shown the Empire to be a massive nuisance to the Ottomans - they could not conquer Europe any further without Constantinople as a supply base. The city's strategic location was still to die for - thw only reason the city was economially weak was because the Venetians and Genoans dominated the tax-free trade, something that the Ottomans changed since they taxed their trade very much.Tourskin 02:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More importantly it led to the end of Eastern Christendom as a political entity (except Trebizond but that was to follow). The result is that over the years Eastern Christians, such as myself, have come under persecution without any real protection other than nonesense constitutions which claim to have religious freedom. Tourskin 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And it marks the end of the medieval age!! How more decisive does an event need to be?Tourskin 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"And it marks the end of the medieval age!" This is not officially accepted. The Fall of Constantinople is only one of the proposed events for ending the Middle Ages. "You cannot simply say that the city fell and that is all." It was a victory as it was, and it was not a decisive victory. The end of the Byzantine Empire is explained, to which the Fall of Constantinople led to - but it does not equal decisive. "they could not conquer Europe any further without Constantinople as a supply base." With little research one can easily notice that the "Empire" had not really conquered anything for quite some time. "massive nuisance" The word nuisance alone covers what the Byzantine Empire was at the time of its fall - a nuisance, not even a massive nuisance. Byzantine Empire was a real nuisance for a long period, but not anymore. "thw only reason the city was economially weak was because...." That is not relevant at all. The Byzantine Empire was still very weak. One could argue that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait hundreds of years later was decisive too (not the Gulf War which eventually followed, the invasion of Kuwait alone) - Kuwait was weak too but its invasion could benefit Iraq much, and the country's invasion was a blow, especially in the Middle East. " Regards, --Kurt Leyman 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You have gone on about my arguments beng irrelevent yet you have not said why? Besides, don't drive us into a tangent, Kuwait invasion was a very decisive battle. why do u think Peter and Dan Snow shows the Kuwaiti invasion in "20th Century Battlefields" TV series? The fall of the Empire meant the End of Eastern Christendom, it gave the Ottomans a new supply base that allowed them to conquer upto Vienna and posses a stronger base from which to control the Aegean and ultimately the mediterranean.Tourskin 05:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Empire had not conquered much before 1453; afterwards it conquered alot! Thats because prior to 1453 the Byzantines had called for two large and threatening Crusades and initiated two rebellions within the Ottoman ranks; two pretenders were backed by Byzantium. The end of Byzantium meant the end of these things.Tourskin 05:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Leyman, before you respond, I beg you to come up with a counter argument to mine and not just say its irrelevent. Show me how and why!!!Tourskin 05:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"You have gone on about my arguments beng irrelevent" Read carefully. I meant that your lines; "thw only reason the city was economially weak was because...." are not relevant to the matter at hand. "Kuwait invasion was a very decisive battle" According to what? "why do u think Peter and Dan Snow shows the Kuwaiti invasion in "20th Century Battlefields" TV series?" I don't know, I don't watch much television, but that does not mean anything really in this case. "I beg you to come up with a counter argument" As a matter of fact I have. I only stated that one of your lines, "thw only reason the city was economially weak was because...." was not relevant, as it does not matter why the Byzantine Empire was weak in this case, as it still was very weak. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not an argument. It does not matter how weak Byzantium was. If a fly guards the best position in the Aegean, the Mediterranean and south-eastern Europe and you kill the wrteched fly and take the position, is it not a monumentous event? Yes it is very relevent. You are not looking at the consequences Kurt. Forget that it was no real fight look at the results. Was it a decisive victory? Did this victory, the fall of the millenia empire have a cataclysmic imapact on the world? The answer is yes! You have not yet said why my arguments are irrelevent and i have shown to you that they are relevent because the end result of a battle is the factor that counts towards how decisive a battle is. Stop telling me its irrelevent, explain!Tourskin 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are overthinking this--the issue for me is: was the fall of Constantinople the decisive battle/seige in the Ottoman-Byzantine wars. The answer has to be yes. Prior to the fall of the city, the Ottomans were engaged in a long-term war--defeating the Byzantines was the goal. Capturing Constantinople signified victory for the Ottomans and the end of the Byzantine Empire. After the fall of the city, the war essentially ended as there was no more Byzantine Empire to fight. It doesn't matter that the Empire was teetering for hundreds of years, or that the Despotate of Morea continued, or that the Ottomans went on to invade the Balkans. The fall of Constantinople was a decisive victory over the Byzantine Empire. Argos'Dad 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Its what I am trying to say. But i'm getting into teh details to show how it was. Tourskin 20:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice the fat message and ample sources I left. You have left no sources.

Kurt, I know I said that I don't want to be at odds with you but see it as I do:

• You have changed the article, which on teh 1st of May 2007, read decisive victory for the Ottomans
• On the 3rd of May 2007, you changed it to just Ottoman victory whilst leaving a discussion message, but without waiting 24 hrs for others to communicate, as I and Argos' Dad wanted to.
• You are denying the above points even though I have shown to you the link
• You have no evidence to suggest that it was not decisive, only your speculation that the Ottomans suffered horrendous casualties
• You have no provided an argument - you only keep on saying that mine is irrelevent without explaining how it is irrelevent. Well I say that ur claim that the Ottomans lost many men is irrelevent - which it is because when you look at the outcome of a battle, you look at the outcome! not at what occured during the battle, but how it affects history. The Egyptians may have "won" at Kadesh but the Hittites won Syria at the end of the day, for example.

I have a list of websites here which us ethe word "decisive out come", decisive confrontation, decisive victory etc.:

• http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/Constantinople.html (this one says decisive confrontation)
• http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/vasilief/constantine-xi-capture-of-constantinople.asp (this one says decisive blow, though probably not appropriate)
• http://www.amazon.ca/Battles-That-Changed-History-Decisive/dp/1842223828 (advertises the book "Battles that changed history" which lists Constantinople's fall as decisive: Spanning two and a half thousand years of warfare, from Salamis, where the Greeks put an end to Persian attempts to overwhelm their country, through the Battle of Hastings and the fall of Constantinople to the key engagements in the World Wars: Midway, El Alamein and Stalingrad right up to Operation Desert Storm, Battles That Changed History is an exciting and authoritative account of fifty decisive battles that, have had a long-term impact on the course of world history. )
• http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/general-secretary/visits/archbishop-christodoulos/29-05-06-archbishop-christodoulos-meditation-at-wcc.html (this website says that the fall was a decisive factor to the Renaissance.)

If you cannot reply with a good argument instead of saying that this is irrelevent, then I shall call on assistance. I have already asked an adminstrator to look at this because this argument is too long and too pointless. U dont have evidence I clearly do. I have nothing against ur opinion, only the fact that ur opinion is so poorly supported.

Stop changing the article without leaving a note WHY. Me and Argos' dad are the last ones to have left a note, so explain ur edits.

Regards

Tourskin 04:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Read this

Everyone hates Turks, that´s a fact. Nobody want´s to write positive about their history. Why? Because they were skilled soldiers...and were muslims, which is the most hated religious majority ever known. But please, try to make fair facts about things, all these absurd numbers which nobody knows for sure and heroic myths... I am mostly curious about where everyone get´s their sources; a more detailed background of each source would be good to add in this discussion page. From where have you red about 80,000-100,000 men vs only 7,000 to 9-000 men?! How in the lord is is possible to know about causalties!?, who wrote that Constantine fought bravely with his men, who said that Sultan Mehmet II did not participate in the battle? The majority of sources are compeletely false, since there´s so much Anti-Turkish foughts in this world. No one knows for sure about this, and many Ottoman battles, therefore Everything should be written as"Unknown", or delete this article from wikipedia!

Come on, go read a book about the subject, the sources used are numerous and many-sided. Try Runciman's The Fall of Constantinople, 1453 for starters. Iblardi 14:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I love the Ottomans... except for the genocide in the 1900s, that was a big mistake. I also love the Seljuqs. Who is this "everyone"? AndarielHalo (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold those Janissaries!

What the hell? Why is the Portugese version of this article at Featured article status and yet it has absoluetly no references, no info war box, far fewer maps and much less writing? I don't understand Portugese but I can guess that implecaciones or whatever it said is going on about the aftermath of the fall. This version the english is infintely better. Please, someone do somtheing - either demote the Portugese version or promote this to FA status. Tourskin 02:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Different language wikipedias have different standards regarding FA status. And it could just be that for Portuguese wikipedia standards their article is FA. Consider that in the early days, there used to be a policy here, on en.wikipedia, that made an article FA if it had "exceptional prose" (see for example here) (oh, and btw, that's how Byzantine Empire got its first FA status). It's just that young wikipedias need to be a little more relaxed about this things in order to gather up steam. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I kinda figured it but then what sthe point of wikiproject Echo? You cant ask a 5th grader who gets A's in his math class to help a 12th grader who gets B's in their math class can you? Why does wikiproject suggest we use these low class articles to improve this one? Its hippocracy and it doesn't make sense! Wikiproject echo is therefore a vwery redundant project because no other langauge had more info on wikipedia. Tourskin 18:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too eager to judge out all of WP:ECHO just from this example. There are cases where other wikipedias have better content than the english one. And anyway it's good to know what goes on in sister wikiprojects. ;-) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Consequences

There are important consequences that IMHO are missing from the article, such as that Constantinople was the first castle to fall under cannon pounding, a fact that changed fortification structures in the whole Europe as well as that the fall was the reason behind Columbus voyages (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Navigation_plans). Dpser 11:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah woah, Constantinople was most definatley not the first castle to fall under cannon pounding if u define cannon as any artillery gunpowder piece. And furthermoore the cannon pounding was ineffective, the largest piece collapsed before the main assault and this reference here:Sherrard, Philip (1975). Great Ages of Man, Byzantium. New Jersey: Time-Life Books. pp. p. 169. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) States that every cannon breach was sealed up. Indeed it seems that the cannon did not play a big part in the fall so much as the fact that the defenders were heavily outnumbered and so in a war of attrition they would not hold out. All your base are belong to us! 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of these consequences can be found at Byzantine-Ottoman wars, which u r more than free to add in, provided they are cited or they are not too controversial/original. All your base are belong to us! 22:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my point is not that it actually fell under cannon pounding or not, but rather that the fall was a milestone for changing the fortification architecture throughout Europe to resist (or rather deflect) cannonballs. Also please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cannon#Medieval_Europe_and_the_Middle_East . Both events that I mention are already found in WikiPedia anyway. My proposal (or rather question) is whether they should be somehow linked to or referenced in this article too. Dpser 09:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well like I said, add what you think is best. But don't use Wikipedia articles or sections to prove a point - wikipedia cannot be used as a source of reference for another point or article. Artillery had been in use long before 1453, and more so in the East (although admitedly it was primarly and anti-infantry weapon). Constantinople was not the first to fall under Cannon fire but true, if u saw the pointless argument I had above with Kurt Leyman, I would have to agree that the fall had many decisive implications.

As for the fall causing a change in architecture - I don't know. I don't know if its a widespread impact, Vienna continued to have old-fashioned walls in 1529 during an Ottoman siege, for example. Having said that, be bold! Tourskin 07:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1204.

What about the Fall of Constantinople in 1204. when it was sacked by the crusader army? 87.250.36.157 18:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is found in the article Fourth Crusade. Tourskin 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for GA

I was quite impressed with this article, good prose, well referenced, good images and wide in its coverage. I've nominated it for GA, would appreciate other editors inputs in trying to reach it. --A.Garnet 12:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Message me for assistance, I have lots of good references. Tourskin 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was very pleased to see this article being nominated. It's long-ish, but certainly not excessive. It's detailed and well-written (though there are some minor issues that need to be addressed), but when I browsed the notes, I came across something that unnerved me a bit. The article is citing primary sources from the 15th century, and seemingly to make a historical assessment rather than simply spicing up the text with qoutes. This is certainly ambitious, but also potentially problematic. For one thing, using primary sources for an encyclopedic article is pretty much straddling a thin line bordering on original research. Moreover, since these are original documents, it's a bit unclear how a reader is supposed to be able to verify them. Have they been published? Are they only available in archives? And hare they viewed by modern historians? Do they really need to be cited directly rather than letting the modern secondary sources make the interpretations for us?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ehh could you be more specific? Like I said above, I have secondary sources that I ain't shy to read and use.Tourskin 08:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I found three primary sources being used and on all accounts I determined that there was nothing wrong with their use - Niccholo Bara... whatever the Ventian surgeon's name is is a reliable source since he escaped alive and fought at the siege. First hand accounts in history are sometimes needed when assessing history. Other sources include a certain Georgio or something like that who is used to reference the Sultan's declaration of protection to the survivors - considering Constantinople had a significant population of Greeks in Istanbul until c. 1920, one would assumes that this correct. Finally another western primary source is used to reference a certain numericla statistic regarding number of ships deployed.

To conclude:

• The primary sources used are few (3) and far between. Its not they are being used to tell the story and they could be lieing!! Alot of it is used to spice up the text and not making any historical assessments. Please point out any such!!
• Primary sources are always needed in a historical assessment - using secondary sources is great because they are usually more "reliable" but we must allow the reader to interpret and make their own decision regarding how they perceieve the evidence.

So let me repeat myself - I don't see a problem.

Respectfully, Tourskin 08:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation of George Sphrantzes is a good example of spicing up the text, but certain citations of the correspondence between church official seems more dubious. Why not just use the secondary sources for this?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Where? I can't find this. In any case wouldn't a primary source best describe correspondance? I mean if a correspondance says something, its obvious and a historical assessment can be made regardless? My main point here anyways is for you to show them please so I and others can address them, thanks. Tell me where or what number the reference is.Tourskin 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about notes 19 and 20. They seem to be used for more than just statistics, and it's not clear how these documents have been published.

Making historical assessments is not the business of an encyclopedia, and is supposed to be done by experts. It's one thing to inform readers about what sources exist for an event, but actually using them to back up a fact statement is making an interpretation. In a historiographical context, it's the equivalent of original research. I don't mind the article mentioning primary sources in a "Further reading"-section, but I don't think it's prudent to cite them as sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

An edition of Leonardo's highly rhetorical account can be found in Migne's Patrologia Graeca - which should be present in most academic libraries - vol. 159, columns 923 to 944. But I am not sure how the article is using this to 'back up' something? After all, the modern, supposedly more accurate estimates are also given. Iblardi 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see a problem. Its not like we are using the Pope's memoirs to give details of the Ottoman offensive.Tourskin 19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Toeing the thin line bordering on original research seems rather unnecessary if you can just as well use modern secondary sources. And even if you want to insist on keeping the direct reference to primary sources, you should specify the source where you got them from, not the documents themselves.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources mentioned are the same ones that are referred to in contemporary literature on the Fall. In my opinion, this article is not trying to build a case on them. The higher estimates are explicitly dismissed in the text and the references to the original sources could be left out, but what is wrong with providing some extra detail? Iblardi 13:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Iblardi - I can't see anything wrong. Nothing core to this article is relying on a flimsy reference. Tourskin 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's your interpretation, then I won't push this issue. Again though, you should inform the reader where you actually acquired these texts rather than citing the documents directly. In which book(s) did you find them?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I myself took no great part in making this article so I don't know unfortunately. It was not I who added themTourskin 08:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo, you are right of course. The reference to Leonardo was added by another user in December 2006 ([5]). I will look up the exact places in PG next week. Iblardi 14:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, well. Actually I do have second thoughts about some instances in which a reference is made to the eyewitnesses' texts. Sorry Peter Isotalo, I was jumping to conclusions regarding your critical remarks and presumed that they were primarily about the numbers in the 'Odds' section, perhaps because that kind of information seems to be a major source of dissent in other, similar articles. Documenting the various opinions of contemporary individuals on army sizes is one thing -if they are represented as mere opinions-, but I think that it is indeed not desirable to use primary sources such as Leonardo di Chio to backup all sorts of claims (such as the recoil of fire arms and collapsing bombards) when we do have good modern scholarly works on our subject. Iblardi 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Status

The article has passed Sections 4), 5) and 6). Work needs to be done on Sections 1), 2) and 3).

Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD.

1) Style

State of the Byzantine Empire section

• Remove semi-colon from "; the Empire of Trebizond,,,,". Start a new sentence from "the Empire of Trebizond,,,,"

Preparations section

• Put "sultan" with a capital S
• west with a capital W
• east with a capital E
• since should go in between "had " and "been"
• Byzantine church with a capital C
• Roman Catholic church with a capital C
• pope with a capital P
• kings and princes with a capital K and P
• republic with a capital R
• senate with a capital S

Odds section

• sultan with a capital S
• cardinal with a capital C
• archbishop with a capital A

Equipment and strategies section

• archbishop with a capital A
• prince with a capital P

Siege and final assault of the city section

• Rename the section to "Siege of the city" as there is another section just below it, called "Final assault"
• admiral with a capital A

2) Accuracy

From the style and use of the language in the article, I can tell that a lot of material was originally taken from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica edition, a work now in the public domain, this needs to be acknowledged in the reference section. Use the 1911 template.

• State of the Byzantine Empire Section - the Latin Empire lasted 57 years, remove "short period of time"

Equipment and strategies section

• There is a citation tag after "religious reverance" find the necessary refereance. The article will fail if there are any tags.
• Add reference for the claim "Orban's giant cannon was said to ,,,,,,"
• Karadja Pasha and Ishak Pasha are non-existent links.

Siege and final assault of the city section

• Therapia and Studius are non-existent links.
• Add a reference for the claim that the "Ottomans had been warned in advance,,,,"

Consequence section

• Rename the section from "Consequence" to "Aftermath"
• Add a sentence that the Sultan had promised his soldiers three days of free pillaging and looting of the city when it fell, source Steven Runciman, the Fall of Constantinople.
• Add a reference for the claim that the "Soldiers fought over the ,,,,,,"

References

• The books by Agostino Pertusi, ISBN numbers are needed.

3) Coverage

• In the consequence section, add the claim of Moscow to be the Third Rome, see the article Third RomePartially done. Please improve if you canTourskin (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Write a new section - Cultural references - how has the fall of Constantinople been depicted in Western, Greek and Turkish art, literature and culture ? If, as the introduction to the article claims, the Fall of Constantinople, marks the end of the Middle Ages then the cultural significance is profound and a new section must be written. Partially done. Please improve if you canTourskin (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

4) Neutrality - Article is neutral without bias to the Byzantines or the Ottomans

5) Stability - Article is stable without major edit wars. I note that you have suffered acts of vandalism by unregistered ISP users.

6) Photos - Free public domain photos are used. No fair use photos. Good use of photos.

Corrections, as specified above, must be done within seven days. Contact me when they have been, and I shall re-assess.

Tovojolo (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Status ON HOLD Extension

It is eight days since the assessment, I note that some of the corrections have been done while others have not. The corrections that have not yet been done are material. I am prepareed to extend the ON HOLD status for another week. What remains is :

Equipment and strategies section

• Add a reference for the claim "Orban's giant cannon was said to ,,,,,,"

Siege of the city section

• Add a reference for the claim that the "Ottomans had been warned in advance,,,,"

Aftermath section

1. Add a sentence that the Sultan had promised his soldiers three days of free pillaging and looting of the city when it fell, source Steven Runciman, the Fall of Constantinople. As Steven Runciman's "The Fall of Constantinople" is the standard, classic text on this topic, I am going to assume that you all have a copy of this book therefore it will be easy to find the reference.

References

• The books by Agostino Pertusi, ISBN numbers are needed.

In addition,

Third Rome sub-section

• "tsar" with a capital T

• Add a sentence on how John of Austria dreamt of liberating Constantinople after defeating the Turks at the Battle of Lepanto (1571). The "Third Rome" being a new Christian Empire in the East, source, Don Juan de Austria: Un Heroe Para un Imperio, ISBN 84-846-0044-0

Cultural reference section

It needs to be expanded. Consider this article here [6] which expresses the sentiments of the Greek people and this article here [7] from the Serbian Patriarch to the Greek Patriarch and this article here [8] - note the words of Dostoyevsky.

The essential point to bring out is that although the political and military claims for Constantinople may be in abeyance, the religious and cultural claims are as strong as ever.

1. Add a reference for the claim that the "Soldiers fought over the ,,,,,,"

Only one extension can be given, the points, above, must be done by 6 December 2007. Contact me when they have been, and I shall re-assess.

Tovojolo 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Status Fail

I note that the work, that was needed, was not done. I, therefore, have no alternative but to declare that the article has now been assessed as a Fail.

Tovojolo (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no beneficiary user contributions after the second "on-hold". I was unable to implement the changes because I was busy. Please only nominate for GA if you, the nominator, are able to actively edit the article. Tourskin (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Julian vs Gregorian

According to several day-of-week calculators I used, the Gregorian Calendar date of 29 May 1453 is a Sunday, not a Tuesday. The Julian Calendar, by contrast, has 29 May 1453 as a Tuesday. Since Constantinople fell on a Tuesday, the Julian Calendar must be the appropriate Calendar. I should also point out that in 1453, the Gregorian Calendar didn't even exist. Its earliest adoption was approximately 130 years later in the 1580s.--Mskarpelos 11:32, 2 January 2008 (PST)

You're right. See also #What Day? above.  --Lambiam 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Strenght source

The link that states the strenght of mehmed's army at 80,000 links to a site about military history with no references to the fall of constantinople. I searched the site and couldn't find this figure anywhere, maybe someone could find it and place the correct link to the 80,000 figure. thank you The link is: http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/medievalmilitary/a/fallconstantino.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.15.139.47 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the source for Norwich who says something along those lines in terms of numbers. Thank you for pointing that out Tourskin (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Decisive victory

I've added in the sources. Dont bother removing them or I'll besiege you with reason and logical arguments. Something that some individuals fail to respond to. Tourskin (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Ottoman Casualties

The word heavy is useless without some numbers provided. So far, no references have been provided to indicate how many Ottoman troops were killed.

Red4Tribe, adding in bogus like:

http://www.insideeurope.org/index.php?backPID=393&begin_at=77&id=393&tt_news=60

Doesn't help your credibility. The article barely mentions the fall of Constantinople, it is a website about Turkey's entry into the EU and therefore is not an authoritative source for this subject. Furthermoore, it says nothing on the casualties sustained!!!Tourskin (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And what about the new one. "Despite Terrible Casualties" I suppose that means they just waltzed into the city without any resistence and suffered few casualties. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

What line? Where on which page? Page 231 has no mention of this. In fact page 231 talks about deployment of troops. Tourskin (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Line 27 (Red4tribe (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

A particular Ottoman assault resulted in "terrible" casualties, but overall, who knows how many were lost. Besides, terrible is a meaningless word without numbers and different from heavy. Heavy can be in numbers, terrible might mean terrible wounds. Tourskin (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

how do you know, where you there... lol--94.54.228.174 (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you know you were made by your parents? Were you there when they made you?Gabr-el 19:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i was there while they r making you... stfu...--94.54.228.174 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean to insult me "I was there whilst they were making you". Not "are" making you. Gabr-el 00:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

oh sorry, what a shame for me. thank you for the grammer lesson, how can i pay you?--94.54.228.174 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fall discussion 2

Yes, Wikipedia is not a place for historical revisionism, but first and foremost, Wikipedia has to be neutral. What if then, something that was coined many years ago, was, from the start point, not at all neutral? Should we "stick" with it, or shouldn't we try to change it for better?

I am sorry, but in this story, clearly, the Turks are the "Other". You even have the words to compare it to Ostrogoths! Well, although no Ostogoths are there to defend their thesis, as well as no American Indians to defend their side of the story, WE are here, and will be defending our side until a REAL neutral standpoint has been reached. This is why, I suggest a name change into "Conquest of Constantinople". Of course, after many talks, we can come to something quite more neutral such as "Seiziure of Constantinople". Yes, words matter!

Until then, Cheers!! --Eae1983 (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fall is neutral. It fell to the Ottomans. It is most commonly know by this term, even the Turks would have celebrated it as the "Fall of the Roman Empire". Tourskin (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if "fall" is completely neutral, but it may not necessarily express anti-Turkish sentiment either, if that is what you mean, Eae1983. We also say "fall of Granada", "fall of Calais". It appears to be used to accentuate the fact that a once-powerful nation looses its last stronghold to an enemy, as a final landmark ending a long period of decline. I do agree that the article is somewhat biased in favour of the "underdog" in this conflict (as is Runciman in his book), but I think this can at least partly be explained by the paucity of contemporary Ottoman sources that describe the event. Iblardi (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Runciman's writings are almost openly biased. I tried to read the Fall of Constantinople 2 years ago, but was disgusted by the degree of bias. For example, he says that the city was sacked during a period of three days, when even post war Byzantine sources actually contradict him. Why do we have to take him as the ultimate scholar on that issue? I pretty much need an explanation on that. Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember well Runciman said that the city was initially given over to the traditional three days of plunder, but Mehmet put a stop to it after one day when there wasn't much left to loot.

Runciman does explicitly mention somewhere in his introduction that he treats the Greek people as the "tragic hero" of the story, but I don't think the bias really goes deeper than that the narrative is written from the perspective of the defenders of the city, making it a rather gloomy tale (which I found very readable). Some of that feeling is admittedly reproduced in the article. But then again, the events on the side of the Byzantines have been better documented than those on the Ottoman side, and if you want to tell the story in detail you will perhaps inevitably run into this problem. Now that I come to think of it, would you happen to know what the source is of the account that Constantine was intercepted and killed by ordinary Ottoman soldiers while he was trying to make his way to a harbour in order to escape by sea? I have seen this mentioned somewhere in Nicolle's work, but I can't remember where he got that from and I don't have the book here, but it would be interesting to know. Iblardi (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let me look at it! :) --Eae1983 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not promote historical revision by claiming number of dead civilians or that someone was raped/pillaged/robbed without accurately presenting sources. I found quite a few odd edits that had strong POV language that was trying to make a conclusion for the reader. The sources did not match the texts, please refrain from doing this, as it will degrade this article and fail subsequent "Good Article" statuses. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Casualties

I cannot find anything on the Ottoman Casualties, other than that they were heavy. Does anyone know a source that has numbers? Red4tribe (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why Fall of Constantinopole and not Conquer of Constantinopole?

I thought Wikipedia was meant to be neutral in all events. However, you can deeply feel the western mentality in most cases. Such as this one. Mehmed II, or Sultan Mehmed, who was later be called as the Fatih, has been given this name after the conquest, which literally means "the Conqueror". Istanbul siege was not a Fall but it was a Conquer. Also, most of the wars the west has won, they are referred to as "victory" on Wikipedia, otherwise they are referred to as "disaster", as in "disastrous Dardanelles campaign".

Wikipedia editor must be neutral and not a fence-sitter which is clearly what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.63.221 (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Fall of Constantinople would take precedence over Conquest of Constantinople because it is the more established term for this event. I don't think this expresses western bias per se. The "Fall of Granada" (1492) would be a counterexample.

(Edit: Interestingly, the article was renamed to Battle of Granada... Yet "Fall of Granada" is the expression that I myself, being a "Westerner", am most familiar with.) Iblardi (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fall has no POV, let me demonstrate to all you Ottoman Nazis out there. \

• Granada fell to us, yeah!!!!! Down it fell! Down with the Arab Moors!!!

• Constantinople fell to us, yeah!!!! Down it fell!! Down with the Greeks!!!

Now then, here is me being sad about the event

• Granda fell!! Tears fill my eyes, it is the end for the glorious Moors!!!

• Constantinople fell!!! Tears fill my eyes, it is the end for the glorious Byzantines!!!

Now that you see that it fell to the winners and fell from the losers. Conquest has the same POV, or should I same lack of!!Gabr-el 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Conquest of Constantinople is the Turkish POV.

Sack of Constantinople is the Greek POV. The event is usually called in Greek Η Άλωση της Πόλης The Sack of the City, with capitalisation of two words Sack (as being the worst event in Greek history) and City (since the Greeks called/call this city simple as that).

The English term used, is the preferable and most non-POV one. --Hectorian (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All muslims name this event as "Conquest of Istanbul" and the western/christian world called it "Fall of Istanbul". If the articel name is "Fall of Istanbul" than the Wikipedia has the western/christian point of view. Ruzgar 21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is no vacuum clean NPOV!!!Gabr-el 01:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

nice point of view, who is the boss here, Pope?!lol...--94.54.228.174 (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

pope or holy roman emperor i don't know but all i see is that they are not willing to discuss like civilized people would; there was another thread about this opened earlier and they thought they won the argument by saying "discussion closed!", the reason for the discussion to be closed was: "it's been a long time since the last person said anything about this". so logical, bravo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.197.60.21 (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fall of Constantinople/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Nice article. I think it needs better citing and the full implimentation of the MILHIST peer-review.--Yannismarou 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)