The
Fall of Constantinople, 1453
A
center of culture and wealth for centuries after the fall of Rome, Constantinople
was a city built to survive and thrive. Its location on a major trade route
made it prosperous, while its placement—surrounded by water on two of its three
sides—created a natural defense. The emperors of this great city built walls to
keep Constantinople in their possession, and the city contained massive storage
capacity for food in order to help it withstand sieges.[1] As
the center of the Byzantine Empire, it kept the cultures of both Greece and
Rome alive, while also becoming a city of diverse people groups, with
representatives from these even among its leaders. The empire possessed a
military force to be proud of and created several military advances in troop
divisions, armor, and navy. Greek fire was one such development.[2] While
it is still unknown exactly how the Byzantines created this effect, historians
theorize that crude oil was the main ingredient. Byzantines mastered projecting
this from their ships as a sort of liquid fire and shot it across the water’s surface
toward enemy ships, engulfing them in flames.[3] The
city’s defensible location was further enforced by the mighty wall of
Theodosius, a wall which transformed the city into more of a fortress than a
city when necessary.[4]
The empire reached its peak under Emperor Justinian in 527 to 565 AD, when
inspired by a desire to restore the Roman Empire to its previous state of glory,
he successfully took back much of Italy and Rome itself.[5]
However, the city and its empire would not last forever, and over time, it
began to draw to an end.
Before continuing to delve into this
subject, it is necessary to address the appropriate name for the empire. For
years it was referred to as the Eastern Empire, but this is no longer the case.
Constantinople was originally called Byzantium before Emperor Constantine
rebuilt and renamed it in 324 AD. In 395 AD, Emperor Theodosius’ death led to
his sons Arcadius and Honorius dividing the Roman Empire into Eastern and
Western regions, with Rome as the capital of the West, and Constantinople the capital
of the East. When the city of Rome fell to Germanic tribes in 476 AD, the
people of Constantinople never viewed it as the end of the Roman Empire.[6] Constantinople
and the remaining Eastern Roman Empire continued another thousand years after
Rome fell and they considered themselves responsible for preserving Roman
culture. For this reason, they viewed themselves as the Eastern Empire. Lord
Kinross describes it this way:
Constantinople…aspired
to be a new Rome. Like the old Rome, it was built upon a cluster of
hills….Classical in aspect and character, it embodied many traditional features
of ancient Rome.[7]
However,
this empire evolved into something completely different from what the Roman
Empire had been, so later historians instead began calling it the “Byzantine
Empire.”[8] The
name “Byzantine” was not first used until 1853 in the English language.[9]
Historians now generally refer to it as the “Byzantine Empire” in favor of the
“Eastern Empire” due to the fact that this empire, in culture and art, among
other things, differed from the original Roman Empire.
This paper intends to address the
factors which eventually led to the city’s conquest in 1453. There were several
reasons for the city’s fall. These included political instability among its
leaders, the decline of Constantinople as a center of trade, divisions between
the Eastern and Western church, and of course, the strongest factor—the rise of
the Turks as a military force and their advance into Europe.[10]
After the Fourth Crusade, the empire began to decline. As the empire’s final
two centuries played out under the Palaeologus dynasty, its lands were reduced
to the city of Constantinople, a small portion of Anatolia and just a strip of
land in the Balkans. In 1347, the Black Death laid waste to Constantinople’s
population, cutting it down to a third of what it had been. Its time of
prosperity over, any symbols of wealth remaining in the city were mostly
deceptive, such as the glass jewels in the royal crown one visitor reported
upon visiting the emperor.[11]
It struggled to even compare to its former glory as a once great city. Historians
can point to several reasons why the city fell, but this paper will focus
solely on the chief factors which brought about the death toll for the
Byzantine Empire. Events such as the Fourth Crusade, the division of the church
and the rise of the Ottoman Turks foreshadowed this outcome, while the
Ottomans’ military tactics and the vast size of their army further contributed
to the city’s downfall.
The long life of Constantinople
testifies to its ideal location both defensively and economically. Its natural
harbors allowed access to large merchant ships, while the strength of its walls
on the landward side were unequaled.[12]
Gunther, a Cistercian monk who wrote a second hand account of the Fourth
Crusade, described vividly the reputed defensive strength of Constantinople:
On that side
touching land it is triply enclosed by an enormous rampart and an especially strong wall. It has lofty,
strong towers…so close to one another that a seven-year-old boy could toss an
apple from one turret to the next.[13]
Constantinople,
living up to its highly impregnable status, remained undefeated from the time
it was founded until 1204. Seventeen times armies laid siege on the city, only
to turn away in defeat. In 1204, however, troops from Europe on the Fourth
Crusade overran the city, founded a Latin Empire, lasting from 1204 to 1261,
and left the city in a vulnerable state. Many historians find it ironic that
this great city which stood so long against Germanic barbarians, infidels and
the like was conquered by fellow Christians in the Fourth Crusade.[14] After
this defeat, the Byzantine Empire was a crippled empire, no longer secure from
future Moslem invaders as they would have been otherwise.[15] The
reasons for this included the fact that the Crusaders left the empire’s
finances devastated as well as practically destroyed relations with Western
Europe, isolating an impoverished Constantinople as the Turks crept closer and
closer.
In the centuries leading up to the
Fourth Crusade, the Seljuk Turks began conquering Asia Minor, frightening all
of Europe with their proximity.[16]
This encroaching danger drove the Western Church into action and brought on the
crusades. The Fourth Crusade began as one such endeavor to stifle the Turks
advance into Europe. In the past, Constantinople had supported Crusaders’
attacks on the Moslems because it protected their own empire; however, the
Fourth Crusade took a completely different and surprising turn. The series of
events which led to the Fourth Crusade’s destruction of Constantinople were
complex and resulted from the clashing of power-hungry men with a claim to the
Byzantine throne, greedy crusaders, cunning Venetian merchants, and angry,
displeased Byzantines.[17] Even
in its time, the motives of the Fourth Crusade were questioned by some as to
their truly holy nature.
Years prior to the crusade, Emperor
Isaac was deposed by his brother Alexius. Isaac’s own son, a younger Alexius,
fled to Germany and sought refuge with Philip, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire
and brother-in-law of this unfortunate heir.[18] When
the Fourth Crusade was still in its early stages of planning, Philip met with
Boniface of Montferrat, the appointed leader of the crusade, to discuss the
possibility of reinstating Alexius as heir. While Boniface kept this in his
mind, conditions with the Venetians transporting the Crusaders became
complicated. The crusade’s initial destination was to be Egypt, but unbeknownst
to the Crusaders, the Venetians were making trade agreements with Egypt which
included the condition of bringing no Crusaders to their land. When the army
arrived before the Venetian ships and could not offer the required payment, it
gave the Venetians influence over the army’s destination. They convinced the
Crusaders to assist them in taking the city of Zara, much to the shock and
horror of Pope Innocent III.[19] The
crusade which would end in Constantinople being sacked had begun.
After the conquest of Zara and division
of spoils, Alexius arrived on the scene with the help of Philip’s careful planning.
The crusaders agreed to assist Alexius for several reasons, such as the strong
urging of King Philip, and Alexius’ promise to support the crusaders should
they successfully place him on the throne. Also, the general opinion of Constantinople
held by the Roman Catholic Church was that the city was heretical due to their
doctrinal differences.[20] Gunther
displays, in his work, the Western perspective on the state of Constantinople
before it fell to the crusaders:
An evil city,
full of deceit and unworthy of the sun’s light…/ A people ignorant of
government, happily subject to no law/…An idle, cowardly rabble, and unfaithful
burden to its kings;/…And within a few days it will atone for its impious
deeds,/ And, conquered by a brave yet tiny band,/ This vile people will suffer
its fate, because of the ignominious death of a youth.[21]
The
Westerners considered the Byzantines to be unruly people who deserved to be
trodden over and forced into submission. They were full of ethnocentric biases
against Byzantium. Finally, the Venetian traders, whose ships transported the
crusaders, viewed the city as an economic rivalry and strongly urged the siege.[22] The
multitude of these pressures mixed with the legends the knights had undoubtedly
heard about Constantinople’s beauty and wealth resulted in their agreement to
assist Alexius.
With an army at their doorstep,
Constantinople’s people took drastic steps to ensure their safety, and Isaac
was actually placed on the throne as emperor once more. Not wanting to lose
their end of the bargain with Alexius due to this turn of events, the Venetians
and Crusaders selected delegates, including the famous Geoffrey of
Villehardouin, to approach Isaac with their demands. They threatened to not
reunite father and son until Isaac had agreed to their terms, which included
the financial payment as well as the Eastern Church’s submission to the pope.[23]
After he agreed and the Crusaders helped establish Alexius IV as rightful heir,
Isaac and Alexius realized their inability to meet the monetary demands
initially promised by Alexius. Political turmoil within Constantinople actually
resulted in both Isaac and Alexius’ deaths. Alexius IV was deposed and
strangled as a result of his own people’s rebellion against the proposed idea
of unifying with the Roman Catholic Church. In response to this, the Crusaders
decided to conquer the city themselves in order to appoint a new emperor and
establish a Latin empire.[24]
By April 1204, the city had fallen into
their hands and was under the authority of the Venetian Enrico Dandolo and the
commanders of the Crusaders, such as Boniface. The soldiers ransacked and
pillaged the beautiful city for three days. The entire city was stripped of its
most precious treasures. Valuable statues were melted down and turned into
coins merely for the sake of divvying out the spoils fairly.[25] Robert
of Clari, a humble crusading knight, described their findings thus, “There were
so many rich vessels of gold and silver and cloth of gold and so many rich jewels….Not
since the world was made, was there ever seen or won so great a treasure or so
noble or so rich.”[26] The
city’s fall led to great disruption in the Byzantine Empire and a temporary
Latin Empire was established by the victorious crusaders. From 1204 to 1261,
the Latin’s maintained control of the city, but they failed to improve the
relationship between Rome and the church of Constantinople.[27]
Despite the massive extent of damage done
within Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine Empire survived
through the line of Alexius II’s daughter and her husband Theodore Lascaris.
They based themselves in Niceaea and began to restore their lands. They were
surprisingly successful and the short-lived Latin empire of Constantinople did
not continue past 1261, when the Greeks took back their city.[28] Despite
the success of the Nicaean dynasty in regaining the city, the consequences of
the Fourth Crusade were deadly upon Constantinople. The pillaging of the
crusaders destroyed the wealth and heritage of this ancient city, leaving it on
the brink of poverty, and the Palaeologus dynasty never successfully rebuilt
their wealth. When Emperor Michael Palaeologus regained the capital city of
Constantinople, the state of his poor empire forced him to rely on funds from
the Genoese traders to help him rebuild. In return, the Genoese received
Galata, the town on the opposite side of the Golden Horn from Constantinople,
and gained control of most of the trade business the city still experienced.
This kept the Eastern emperors from rebuilding their wealth.[29]
The Fourth Crusade had a serious impact
upon Constantinople and placed the empire in an economic rut. Unable to rebuild
their treasuries due to the Genoese’s monopoly on the trade, the empire was
weakened. When the Turks face the city in 1453, more than two hundred years
later, the empire fell more easily due to the incomplete recovery from the
crusade’s destruction. Also, the crusade further ensured the city’s ultimate
fall by deepening the rift between the Eastern and Western Church. As Muller
simply and completely put it, “Whatever chance there might have been of uniting
Christendom, or of preserving Eastern Christendom from the Turks, was killed
for good by the Fourth Crusade.”[30] Without
support from the West, the Byzantine Empire stood alone before the wave of
religiously motivated Turkish armies. The emperors, realizing their desperate
state, attempted to mend this severed relationship, but no matter the political
motivations, the people refused to accept any such unity because of bitter
feelings and strong convictions about doctrinal differences. Constantinople was
ripening for an Ottoman harvest as a consequence of the Fourth Crusade and the
resulting poor economic state of the empire and its rough relations with the
West.
Several contemporary sources exist
telling the story of the Fourth Crusade. Geoffrey of Villehardouin was the most
well-known historian on this subject as an eye witness of the events and a
leader among the forces attacking Constantinople. He spoke a great deal of the wealth
taken from the city, indicating the extent of their damage inflicted on Constantinople’s
economy.[31]
Edgar Holmes McNeal speaks of Robert of Clari, another contemporary source on
the crusade’s history often overlooked in favor of Geoffrey of Villehardouin.
Clari’s manner of portraying events offers a unique perspective because he is
only a common French knight in the Fourth Crusade, a vassal to Pierre of
Amiens.[32]
He tells the history as one not always informed of the political details
occurring in the background, but much of his information, such as the nature of
the unfulfilled promises of Alexius, is accurate. Robert, as a contemporary
historian, goes into great detail to describe Constantinople in all its
magnificence. However, his work also reveals the common prejudices of western
Christians against the “cowardly and treacherous Greeks.”[33]
Another contemporary, though not as
reliable, source was a Cistercian monk who lived from approximately 1150 to
1210. Gunther lived in Alsatian abbey of Pairis. He was a talented author and
was well-known for his Latin works. Hystoria
Constantinopolitana, his most important when compared to his other Latin
works, depicts the events of the Fourth Crusade.[34]
His accuracy as a historian is questioned concerning the noble way he describes
the crusaders invading Constantinople. Gunther, in his biased perspective on
events, speaks of the crusaders as a small band of men forced into combat in
the face of uncountable Greek people.[35] According
to his account, the crusaders barely spilt a drop of blood and let chivalry
guide their conduct as they entered the streets. However, eye witness accounts
tell a much different and bloodier story.[36]
Gunther of Pairis falls under the classification of a medieval historian. To be
a historian in this period did not refer to a career or a profession, but
simply to “an amateur literary pursuit” of any who found it convenient to
record historical events. They did not value extensive research or gaining an
accurate account of occurrences, preferring instead to focus on telling the
story in an engaging manner.[37] Similar
to Gunther, Robert of Clari concerns himself largely with creating an
entertaining portrayal of the events rather than focusing on searching out
accurate historical incidents. To strengthen the narrative, speculated
conversations between leaders of the battle are included. Robert’s fault comes
when he fails to distinguish between known facts and imagined representations
in his account.[38]
These contemporary sources, then, are in many ways unreliable and not trustworthy;
however, they remain valuable tools for latter historians studying the subject
by providing the perspectives and biases which existed within the conflict.
Their facts and dates may not all be perfectly correct, but they reveal the
sentiments of their time.
Some more modern historians who analyze
the Fourth Crusade more objectively agree with the horror of the three days in
which the crusaders ravaged the city and the tragedy of the fire they lit
destroying a large part of the city. Muller, among other historians, considers
the Fourth Crusade as an elemental factor in the fall of Constantinople in
1453.[39]
Paul Wittek also clearly pinpoints the Fourth Crusade as an event which greatly
reduced the expanse of the Byzantine Empire,[40]
while J.M. Hussey considers it a disastrous event responsible for an even
bigger problem. He looks at the Fourth
Crusade as an event which widened the chasm of tension between the East and
West and ruined the Easter Roman Empire’s chances of survival against the
Turks.[41] Whatever
resulting factor they identify as the worst, historians agree it was the
turning point which eventually led to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.
A notable historian on the Crusades,
Steven Runciman speaks of these Holy Wars very critically. He labels the Crusades
as a “vast fiasco” with a “puny outcome.”[42] Their
main accomplishment, according to his interpretation, was to widen the expanse
of the pope’s authority. The many negative consequences of the Crusades far
from justify this one benefit for the pope. Upon considering the results within
Byzantium, he is particularly harsh towards the Crusades.[43]
Runciman states clearly the amount of responsibility he lays on the Fourth
Crusade for the Ottomans gaining a footing in Europe:
Faced with the
hostility of the West and the rivalry of its Balkan neighbours, it [Byzantium]
could no longer guard Christendom against the Turks. It was the Crusaders
themselves who willfully broke down the defence of Christendom and thus allowed
the infidel to cross the Straits and penetrate into the heart of Europe.[44]
Jonathan
Phillips, a more recent historian in this field, attempts to move past simply
labeling the Fourth Crusade as an immoral corruption of the Crusades. He
acknowledges the cruelty of the Crusades, but also attempts to look at it from
a positive aspect, arguing for its role in advancing contact with another world
outside of the Catholic one for the Crusaders. Phillips makes the point that
any sort of tension or fighting with Islam is tied to crusading, using
America’s intervention against Al-Qua’ida as an example. His historical account
of the Fourth Crusade relies strongly on recounting events told by primary
sources.[45]
While he does recognize the incident of the Fourth Crusade as being a key event
leading to the Eastern and Western Churches mutual bitter feelings, he also
points out truthfully the fact that the Fourth Crusade’s story, told in
entirety, would remove blame from the church.[46]
The issue of the Eastern Orthodox Church
and the Roman Catholic Church being divided placed Constantinople in a more
vulnerable position before the Ottomans. Even when the church attempted to mend
their differences, it merely created disunity within the city and helped very
little. In the early church, there were initially five patriarchates, each with
their own patriarch. The five centers of these patriarchates were Rome,
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Under each patriarch’s see
were archbishops/metropolitans and bishops who, in turn, oversaw the priests.
Priests served on a more local setting within the churches to govern the common
people directly.[47]
Eventually, the patriarch of Rome became known as the pope and claimed ultimate
authority over all other churches, however, the patriarchs of the other four
centers, including Constantinople, rejected this belief, believing themselves
to be equal to the pope.
The emperors of the Byzantine Empire
viewed themselves as a sort of father to the church, overseeing and even
involving themselves in matters of church doctrine. One example of this is seen
in their active role concerning usage of icons in the church. During the eighth
and ninth centuries, this issue led to conflict/disagreement both within the
Eastern churches and with the Western church as a whole.[48]
The struggle over the use of icons began in 726 AD under Leo III, who first
attempted to remove icons as a part of worship. A council in 843 finally
brought this drawn out theological debate to an end. The iconoclasts,
“image-breakers,” did not have their way in the end, but the conflict did begin
to cause some of the theological differences between the Eastern and Western
churches which would eventually end in a schism.[49]
Several other matters separated the
churches of the East and West also, such as methods of worship, differences in
culture and governmental systems, the chief language used in religious contexts
(West used Latin while East used Greek in the church), and even simple matters
concerning order of the church. The East tended to consider Westerners as
uncultured people.[50]
Another area of disagreement, titled the Photian schism, revolved around the
controversial appointment of Photius as the new patriarch of Constantinople
after Ignatius. These two men alternated the position due to political
struggles between the pope and the Byzantine emperor, over a span of several years
(846-886). This incident, although initially sparked by religious issues,
became more political as it continued and it was another factor which brought
the East and the West closer to a permanent schism.[51]
The century leading up to the final
division of the Eastern and Western churches witnessed differences in progress.
The Western church experienced a series of immoral and corrupt popes while the
Eastern Church came to a period of relatively internal harmony, and the empire
itself entered a time of prosperity under the Macedonian dynasty.[52]
The two chief elements of dispute concerned the extent of the pope’s authority
and the wording of the church’s creed. The pope, beginning with Pope Nicholas I
in 865 AB, declared his authority as supreme above all other churches which
Constantinople and the other patriarchates rejected. With the creed, it
concerned the matter of the Roman church adding one word, “filioque,” meaning
“and the son,” to the original Nicene Creed. This additional word stated the
Holy Spirit came not merely from the Father, but also from the Son. The
Byzantines considered this a matter of heresy though.[53]
In 1054, the division was completed. The religious leaders who brought about the
final and absolute schism were Pope Leo X in Rome and Michael Cerularius,
patriarch of Constantinople. These two men, due to political and doctrinal
issues, excommunicated each other in 1054, finalizing the schism.[54]
In the century and a half before 1453,
the influence of the emperor over the Eastern church lessened largely due to
the emperor’s attempts to bring unity once more between the Roman Catholic and
Eastern Orthodox churches. The majority of the emperors in this time span
acknowledged the threat of the advancing Turks and hoped to give their empire
security by gaining promised support from the East.[55]
The emperors recognized a need to re-unite with the Western church in order to
save their fading empire. However, this union was difficult to bring about. The
church in the West attempted to call for further crusades, but these failed.
The political disruptions among leaders in the West and the stubbornly held
beliefs of the East created many barriers for union.[56]
Michael Palaeologus was one of the first
in a line of rulers to fight for the unification of the East and West, but his
people, who could not look beyond the ecclesiastical aspect, were not behind
him and in 1282, when Andronicus II came to power, Michael’s work all came to
naught.[57] In
the Eastern Empire, even the laity concerned themselves with theology because
to them it seemed the difference between spending an eternity suffering in Hell
or glorifying God in Heaven. Towards the end of the empire, some admitted how
strongly they felt about doctrinal issues by stating they would rather by
conquered by Turks than submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.[58]
Andronicus III once more picked up the
matter of union and attempted to initiate a new council. This was not achieved,
however, until the reign of John VIII Palaeologus. In the year 1439, the
Council of Florence took place which John VIII Paleologus, Joseph (patriarch of
Constantinople) and various other archbishops and bishops attended. They
discussed and attempted to compromise on doctrinal matters such as the wording
of the creed, and the pope’s role as supreme authority.[59]
On July 6, 1439, the decree of union was established and accepted by the
emperor and the pope. All appeared well and the Eastern empire seemed out of
danger for a moment, but upon the delegates return to Constantinople, the
people protested strongly. The formal unification ceremony was held on December
12, 1452, several years later in the church of St. Sophia despite continued
opposition. This event resulted in Constantinople’s greatest church being rejected
by the people as a place of worship because the people viewed it as tainted by
the proclamation of union within its walls. Alexandria, Jerusalem, and
Antioch’s patriarchs rejected the council’s decision of unity. The “union”
brought about great displeasure and perhaps did more harm than good.[60]
The only reason the emperor managed to finally
have this service of proclamation in 1452 was the very real threat of a Turkish
siege. Many openly opposed the union, with Gennadius II being the most
influential a man in this grouping. He was a scholar of the Orthodox Church,
living in a monastery cell, from which he forewarned the people that this union
would result in the city’s fall.[61]
Lucas Notaras, a grand duke and leading official of the city, argued about the
union that he preferred an Islamic invasion of the city to the submission to
the pope and Michael Ducas, a historian compared Hagia Sophia to a temple or
synagogue since the ceremony was held there establishing the union. Sadly, this
entire internal struggle came to naught for the West provided very little
military support in comparison to what it promised.[62]
The city’s failure to truly mend the broken bonds between the churches is key
in the later loss of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks.
The church of Hagia Sophia, shortly
after the Moslem’s conquest, was transformed by order of Mehmed II into a mosque.
Some remodeling was done, but interestingly, he did not have all of the images
within the church whitewashed. He had several Christian articles removed and
commanded the building of some mosque features such as a prayer-niche facing Mecca
and a minaret outside.[63] This
first minaret eventually was followed by the building of three others over
time. Mehmed, upon taking power in the city, viewed himself not as a tyrant
conqueror, but as a successor of the emperors of Constantinople. This led him
to appoint a new patriarch, Gennadius II, the man who earlier in
Constantinople’s history so strongly opposed the union of the Eastern and
Western churches.[64]
Historians, upon examining the role of
the church in Constantinople, agree how important a role the church played in
every citizen’s life. The people, including all rankings, from leaders of the
church and state to the common laity, greatly concerned themselves with matters
of doctrine and theology. One example is seen in a difference of opinions over
the use of icons in the church. This argument of whether or not it was a form
of idolatry lasted through the majority of the 8th and 9th
centuries, and Sherrard considers it significant in how it displays that even a
simple matter such as the use of icons in the church, could set Constantinople
off and practically tear the empire apart in their lengthy debates.[65]
Crowley also describes the depth of this relationship between Byzantines and
their church in this way, “The stability of the empire was at times threatened
by the number of army officers who retired to monasteries, and theological issues
were debated on the streets with a passion that led to riots.”[66]
The rise of the Ottomans as the leading
force among Muslims is an obvious factor which brought about the fall of
Constantinople. The Ottomans were an ambitious nation which looked beyond their
own lands, coveting them. Before conquering Constantinople, they called it the
“Red Apple” due to the globe held in the hand of the statue of Justinian which
stood at the center of Constantinople. However, with the plucking of this apple
and the toppling of Justinian’s statue, the Ottomans simply re-labeled further
lands as red apples, ripe and waiting to be plucked before them. Mehmed II was
also personally driven as a conqueror by a desire to build an empire to equal
Alexander the Great’s conquests.[67]
This desire to conquer among the Muslims
and Turks stretches further back than the Ottomans though. The year 622 AD
marks the Hegira, Mohammed’s escape to Mecca and the beginning of Islam’s
rampant spread across Arabia, into Africa and the Holy Land. Three of the
patriarchates fell under this expansion from 633 to 678, but the Muslims
allowed Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria to continue existing as patriarchs,
giving their conquered people freedom of religion. This left only Rome and
Constantinople as patriarchates not governed by Muslims.[68] In
627 AD Emperor Heraclius of Constantinople put an end to the Persian’s advance,
just as the Arabs were beginning to rise to power. By 636 AD they took
possession of Syria and Palestine. Continuing to advance, they conquered Egypt.
From 717 to 718 AD, they attempted to take Constantinople itself while Slavs
attacked the Byzantine Empire in the north.[69] The
invention of “Greek fire” by the Byzantines along with bad weather (which
helped to destroy the Muslim’s fleet) saved Constantinople in this initial
invasion.[70]
It is interesting to note that the dates
of Leo III’s attempts to suppress iconography somewhat correlate to when the
Arab invaders were advancing on the empire. These Islamic warriors never
allowed any images within their mosques because they viewed it as idolatry. The
invasions reached their greatest threat in 717 AD, but as noted early, this
ultimately was a failed invasion. This would be far from the last time though
that Islamic armies would camp outside Constantinople.[71]
Cannon describes the Arabs desire for conquest as being rooted in their faith
in his book, “The Arab devotees of Islam were as determined to win a religious
and cultural victory as they were to come away conquerors from the fields of
military combat.”[72]
From the beginning of the Muslims as a nation, their goals often revolved
around conquest.
One people they conquered were the
Seljuk Turks. The year 1055 marked the Seljuks, converts of Islam, taking power
over the Arab’s dominion with their conquest of Baghdad. Eager and power
hungry, they continued advancing, fighting the Battle of Manzikert the summer
of 1071 against the Greeks. Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes’s loss against the
Turkish leader Alp Arslan, however, alarmed the Western world and eventually
led to the initiation of the crusades in 1095.[73] The
Battle of Manzikert between the Byzantines and the Seljuks in 1071 ended with
the Byzantine’s defeat on the field, but also marks the beginning of the
Islamic faith entering the territory of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. This was
a conversion and transfer of power which resulted eventually in the Byzantine
Empire declining.[74] As
the Seljuk Turks slowly took over Asia Minor, the empire lost more and more
land. Its greatest food supply as well as the majority of their army came from
Asia Minor before the Turks gained dominion over the region, so this loss was
detrimental on the empire as more than just a loss of land.[75]
The beginning of the Ottomans occurred
when Osman took the position of leadership among a group of Turkish warriors in
1288. Under him the Turks conquered
lands extending to the Black Sea and the Bosphorus. These Osmanli Turks
continued on this path of conquest for several years forging an empire which
would last for six centuries.[76] They
were a harsh people, with their hearts absorbed by their Islamic faith and
visions of conquest. Historically these two elements go hand in hand quite
harmoniously and such would be the case for these Osmanli Turks. Uniquely, most
of the leaders of these Turks actually turned away repulsively from a wealthy
lifestyle, revealing their motivation to conquer did not spring from a desire
to gain wealth. These leaders eventually took on the title of “Sultan.”[77] These
were the people who ultimately would conquer Constantinople in 1453.
Around 1330, a new type of warrior was created
by the Ottomans entitled “Janissaries.” They were formed from Greek, Christian
boys who were taken from their homes in order to be raised as a sort of holy
Muslim army owned by the sultan. Dressed in cloaks of yellow and green with
plumaged caps, these men learned specific marching techniques and faced strict
standards reflective of their position being basically equivalent to
enslavement to the sultan.[78]
These troops played a major role in the conquest of Constantinople in later
years.
The Ottoman’s first entrance into Europe
was ironically caused by a Byzantine Emperor. Upon Emperor Andronicus III’s
death in 1341, the young John V Palaeologus rose to the throne with his mother
acting as regent. However, John Cantacuzene, the Grand Domestic of the empire,
challenged this and rallied troops who supported him as the new emperor. The
conflict which sprung from this event caused a civil war and greatly weakened
the already struggling empire.[79] John
Cantacuzene, looking for greater support in his pursuit of the throne of
Constantinople, bargained with Urkhon of the Ottomans. The 6000 Ottoman troops given
were the first to enter Europe, and it was all due to Cantacuzene’s efforts. He
had no way of knowing the power he unleashed or that his bargain would become a
factor which “signed the death warrant of the thousand-year-old empire founded
by Constantine.”[80] By 1347, the two emperors finally resolved matters
and peace was attained. However, hiding the shaky state of the empire was quite
another, and perhaps, more difficult chore.[81]
Not long after this, the Ottomans made their first move.
After entering Europe in 1345 briefly to
assist Emperor John VI Cantacuzene in a civil war, they returned in 1354 to
fight their own battles. In this year, the Ottomans took Ankara, a key city of
the previous Seljuk Turks, which further established the Ottomans as the new
ruling dynasty. Also, in 1354 they gained possession of Gallipoli, their first
victory in Europe.[82]
Robert Payne describes vividly in his history of Islam this crossing of the
Turks into Europe, “When the Turks crossed over into Europe, they came
casually, almost carelessly, with the effrontery of a people who knew their own
strength.”[83]
By the time of Urkhon’s death, the Ottoman Turks’ borders had expanded to the
point of leaving the Byzantine Empire at the mercy of the sultan. After him, in
1359, his younger son Murad took the throne and continued advancing in battle,
eventually even taking Adrianople.[84]
He set Adrianople up as his capital, a city actually further inland than
Constantinople.[85]
When Murad died, a large part of what would be the Ottoman Empire was already
under the Sultan’s control.[86]
Bayazid came to power next among the Ottomans and struck the Christian world
with fear. A crusade was asked for by Pope Boniface IX, but it ended in defeat
with the Turks taking 10,000 men as captives. Bayazid began forming a plan for
defeating Constantinople, constructing “the Anatolian fortress” along the coast
opposite Constantinople and only six miles away.[87]
Due to the empire’s shaky state, one
could approach the fall in 1453 not only as inevitable, but asking why the city
lasted as long as it did when surrounded by lands owned by the Ottomans. Hussey
claims this is because of the strength of Constantinople as a defensive city
and also, a particular event which occurred in 1402. Sultan Bayezit of the Ottomans was planning an
offensive attack against Constantinople when Timurlane, an enemy of the
Ottomans, attacked the Ottomans, drawing the sultan’s attention away from
Constantinople. The battle resulted in Bayezit’s defeat, which led to a great
disruption among the Turks for several years, giving Constantinople time to breath
before the final death blow.[88] Order
was not completely restored within the Ottomans until Mehmed I came into power
in 1413. He was not the typical warring sultan, but rather a peaceful leader
who maintained many alliances, including one with the Byzantine emperor.[89]
His son, Murad II, varied greatly from his father. He was a scheming man with
an urge to taste victory and when Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus attempted to
raise up an opponent to Murad’s throne, Murad crushed it and deemed Constantinople
too great a threat to allow its survival. As Payne puts it, “Murad concluded
that there was not safety in Constantinople and vowed its destruction. From
that moment the fate of Constantinople was sealed.”[90]
Although Murad never had the military capacity needed to take the city, he left
the table set for his son, Mehmed II to finish the work he began and conquer
Constantinople. Mehmed was both a fiery, cruel man and an intellectual man,
which created a deadly combination for the city of Constantinople. He knew the
city was ripe for the picking and planned accordingly.[91]
When researching the rise of the
Ottomans, one comes across comparisons of the Muslims with their Christian,
European neighbors. For instance, in the midst of discussing the extent of the
battles between Christians and Muslims, Lewis offers an interesting
perspective. He brings up the ways in which the two faiths are common. Both
sprung up in the Middle East and both have roots found in Judaism. Lewis
actually argues that had the faiths not been so similar, they might have
avoided such extensive clashes between them. However, he is not naïve enough to
fail to distinguish obvious differences between the two faiths which spark
their conflict. Their sacred texts the Bible and the Qur’an bear distinct
teachings, the mosque and the church contain separate traditions and methods of
worship, and the key figures, who they hold as their founders, vary in
character and living conditions. Jesus never used his influence to stir up
conflict despite the belief among the Jews that the Messiah would spark a
rebellion that would cast off any foreign power reigning over them. Mohammed,
in contrast, used his position to create an empire through war.[92]
Overall, though, Lewis did not see Christians and Muslims as varying greatly in
their motives.
Unlike Lewis, Paul Wittek never attempts
to compare the two types of believers, but rather portrays them as strong
enemies. He describes the Ottomans as if their goal were to scorch all of
Christendom. He states, “From the first appearance of the Ottomans, the
principal factor in this political tradition was the struggle against their
Christian neighbours and this struggle never ceased to be of vital importance
to the Ottoman Empire.”[93] Upon
Mansel’s description of the Ottoman’s ambitions of conquest and the warring
deeds of sultans such as Bayezid I and Murad II he calls it a “miracle” the
city was not conquered before 1453.[94]
Roger Crowley refutes these ideas in the sense of this conflict being so
strictly divided between Christian Greeks and Muslim Turks. He points out that
in the actual conflict of 1453, the army of the Ottomans consisted of not only
Turks, but Christian vassals, Slavs, and other such people groups, while those
fighting for the Byzantines consisted not only of the actual Byzantines, but of
all manner of Western European groups such as Venetians and Genoese.[95]
His point is that this battle was not a consequence of Muslims hatred of
Christians or vice versa. It was not a battle limited to any specific people
group either.
Lewis does a brief comparison between
the historiography of Christians and Muslims following the fall of Rome and the
establishment of both Christian and Muslim spheres of influences. Christians of
the Western church started telling history in the midst of Rome’s fall and the
church gaining power. Many of them viewed losses in battle as a sign of being
outside God’s will. Muslims, on the other hand, began writing their history in
the face of military success and they viewed their authority as ordained by
God.[96] A
Muslim historian viewed God’s role in history as “helping rather than testing
His people…therefore, the state and its affairs are not external or secondary
to the true purpose of history.”[97] This
difference reveals the confidence of the Ottomans in their drive to conquer and
explains the depth of the Byzantine’s despair over being conquered. This
conquest, to some of them, seemed to indicate that the Christians of
Constantinople had somehow displeased or fallen out of favor with God. However
one interprets the events, it does appear true that the rise of the Ottomans
greatly contributed to the fall of the Byzantines. Crowley words it well when
he says, “The rising arc of the Ottomans was mirrored by a corresponding and
unhalted decline in the fortunes of Byzantium.”[98]
Finally, no matter how many events
surround a conquest influencing the outcome, the battle itself must be the
ultimate deciding factor for who will be the victor. Shortly after becoming
sultan in 1451, Mehmed II made his intentions to conquer the city clear by
constructing a fortress called Rumeli Hisar. It was directly across form
Anadolu Hisar, giving the Turks power over everyone who crossed through the
Bosphorus. The Turks referred to this rapidly built fortress as Boghaz-Kesen,
or “throat-cutter”. In August 1452, it was completed and the sultan returned to
Edirne to further prepare for a siege.[99]
By April 5th, 1453, the Turks arrived within two and a half miles of
the city walls, and during the next two days, they moved their camp up within
less than a mile. As his land army moved into attack position, his fleet came
to rest before the city. Constantinople prepared for attack, stationing men on
the wall and raising the boom (a very large chain) over the Golden Horn harbor
to keep the Ottoman fleet out.[100] Mehmed
II’s forces consisted of 160,000 men, 12,000 of these being Janissaries trained
for battle from their youth. In addition to his troops, Mehmed created a fleet
of around 150 ships. He had come in full force, prepared for a victory. Emperor
Constantine XI, in contrast, was limited to approximately 4,973 fighting men.
Despite the troop numbers, the city still had a chance of survival due to the
excellent leadership of the emperor and Giovannin Giustiniani, a Genoese who
was appointed commander of the Byzantine’s army.[101]
The sultan had at his disposal the
services of Urban, an engineer from Hungary who developed a huge cannon. He
initially came to the emperor but turned instead to work for the sultan when he
was offered four times as much money as the emperor could pay him. Urban
claimed his cannon had enough power it could have taken down even the walls of
Babylon.[102]
His cannon weighed around 1300 pounds and the opening being eight inches in
diameter and its barrel was approximately twenty-six feet long. Built in
Edirne, it took sixty oxen to pull it on a carriage. Moving it was tedious
because before they could bring it in front of the walls of Constantinople,
roads had to be evened out and the bridges built up to hold such a massive
weight.[103]
In contrast to the large cannons of the Ottomans, the Greeks had small, light
cannons out of concern for preserving their wall.[104]
The city itself also greatly increased the odds for the defenders due to its
magnificent fortifications. When it came down to it, both sides had moments of
anticipating a possible victory on their own side.[105]
One of the significant events in the
history of the siege was when the four Genoeses ships arrived in the waters
before the city on April 20th, 1453. A sea battle occurred between
these four ships and the entire Turkish fleet, and remarkably, the Genoese
ships held them off.[106]
They successfully fought their way to the Golden Horn, and the infuriated
sultan who watched it all, responded angrily by beating his admiral nearly to
death as punishment for such a humiliating failure.[107]
Furious, the sultan developed a drastic plan to reach the waters of the Golden
Horn on the other side of the boom. He ordered his fleet to be transported over
land into the Golden Horn using timber and wheeled cradles.[108] This
transportation of a fleet by land also remains a key event in the siege.
In comparison to Mehmed’s fiery nature,
the Emperor Constantine faced his heavy task with calmness and worked hard
night and day to maintain defenses. He remained, in appearance, unshaken, and
never chose to consider surrender. When the Turks built wooden towers for their
advance against the walls, Giustiniani used gunpowder to explode them. When
they dug tunnels, Johann Grant, a German engineer, successfully prevented their
immersion on the other side with more gunpowder, smoking them out and other
such methods.[109]
Sadly, no matter how effective their defense tactics were, it soon became
apparent to the emperor, due to dwindling resources and weariness of his men in
constantly defending the never-ending assaults, the city was nearing its final
breath under his command. Mehmed sensed it too in his request for scaling
ladders and during examinations of his troops and fleet.[110]
On May 28, 1453 the church of Hagia
Sophia held one final service before the city’s fall.[111]
The work of John VIII in the Council of Florence did result in some good. The
Western church had sent some slight manner of support and in May of that same
year, this final mass was held with a united church—Greeks and Latins alike.
Then came the fall of the city and the death of Emperor Constantine XI at St.
Romanus Gate, and the shadow of the Turks completely engulfed the city.[112]
On May 26 or 27, just two days prior to the final assault, Halil Pasha, Grand
Vizier of Mehmed, advised the young sultan to turn away from the city. The
sultan opposed his father’s past adviser and on the 29th ordered the
invasions of the city which destroyed it.[113]
In these last days before the city’s fall, Mehmed’s men lit fires and cried out
in a frightful manner to their god while Christians of Constantinople gathered
in Hagia Sophia for a final mass. On the 28 of May, the Muslims prepared
themselves for the final attack bringing some two thousand ladders to the
front.[114]
In the early morning hours of May 29,
when darkness was still upon the city, Mehmed ordered the final attack. The
assaults were relentless and gave the defenders little time to breath. With the
first rays of sunlight, the Turks finally had made it through those mighty
walls in several places.[115]
In these final hours of the siege, two events seemed to help bring about the
city’s fall. The first occurred when a group of Turks somehow found a way in
through a gate, from which they were able to climb a tower and hoist their
flag. Around the same time, Giustiniani was wounded and departed to his ship.
These two events lowered troop morale and led to a deceptive cry that the city
had been taken.[116]
Constantine attempted to reach the source of the false cry, but he soon
realized it was too late and the city was taken. He faced his death bravely,
casting off his imperial insignia and rushing into the think of the battle.[117] The
Emperor died fighting with his men to the end. Kinross quotes the historian
Gibbon who describes the gallant fall of the emperor, “The prudent despair of
Constantine cast away the purple…the distress and fall of the last Constantine
are more glorious than the long prosperity of the Byzantine Caesars.”[118] By
noon, Mehmed entered the city himself and tasted victory.[119]
The city of Constantinople stood as the center of the Byzantine Empire for
1,123 years, but this siege, lasting only fifty-three days, saw the end of the
empire.[120]
There are several contemporary accounts
on the fall of Constantinople, interestingly though most of these are written
from the loser’s side, not the victorious Ottomans.[121]
Nicolo Barbaro, a Venetian surgeon in Constantinople during 1453, wrote an
account of the siege. His work contains obvious bias towards his own countrymen
and often portrays the Genoese and Greeks unfavorably. However, it is valuable
because being written in the form of a diary, it contains dates and gives a
chronological ordering of the siege.[122]
Barbaro reveals the spiritual significance to the people living in those days
for both the Muslims and the Christians. “And when each side had prayed for
victory, they to their god and we to ours, our God in Heaven determined with
His Mother which of us should be successful in this battle…”[123]
This quote from his account reveals a trait of medieval history, in placing God
as the determiner of the battle. Crowley takes this significance a step
further. According to him, the defeat in 1453 confirmed for the Muslims their
belief that conquest for them was assured. In facing a rival monotheistic
faith, the Muslim’s defeat indicated to them the supremacy of their god. He
defined the city of Constantinople according to this idea, “Constantinople
defined the front line in a long-running struggle between two closely related
versions of the truth that was to be pursued for hundreds of years.”[124]
Paul Wittek very plainly identifies the
Ottoman’s conquest of Constantinople as a monumental event which led to their
eventual creation of an empire.[125]
He describes is as an act to oppose all of Europe, proving to them Mehmed’s
dominion over these lands. Mehmed the conqueror and his Ottomans began an
empire here. His first task was to rebuild the city which had suffered from his
own siege but also had never fully recovered from the Fourth Crusade.
Constantinople once more began to emerge as a powerful sphere of influence
under Mehmed’s attention to building up walls and schools established.[126]
Concerning the Ottomans after they conquered the city, Wittek stated, “It was
doubtless now an empire, an empire firmly established in its territory…an
empire, with its own determined and determining factors, recognizing no limits
to the further extension of its frontiers.”[127]
Mansel examines the aftermath of the
city’s fall in a slightly different light. He looks at situations such as
Mehmed II’s fair, reasonable treatment of Galata and he concludes the Eastern
and Western world were compatible to live side by side. He refused to view the
Ottomans as a race completely intolerant of Christianity and anything European.[128]
He also addresses how Mehmed re-establishes the Eastern Orthodox Chruch after
his conquest and does acknowledge that despite this, the church would not look
on the Muslims as equals. While outwardly, the Greeks, especially the newly
appointed Patriarch Gennadios, showed gratitude to the sultan for preserving
the Eastern Orthodox Church, they still despised their conquerors. The Greeks
referred to the Muslims as “dogs,” “infidels,” etc. Almost as soon as the city
was conquered, prophesies emerged about a day when the dead emperor would
return or a mass once more would be held in Hagia Sophia.[129]
Crowley, in his book places the fall of
Constantinople as a marker to the end of the medieval period, a theory which
Cannon agrees with. Cannon concludes his book nicely with this statement,
The Council of
Florence dissolved in 1445; Pope Eugenius IV, its guiding spirit, died two
years later in 1447; the Eastern empire collapsed with the fall of
Constantinople in 1453….The Middle Ages passed away as they had
begun—imperceptibly—the new order having been established scarcely before men
realized the old order had gone.[130]
Muller
speaks of the city’s fall as an inevitable matter, bringing up factors such as
the Fourth Crusade, economic decline, the failed attempts to reconcile the
Eastern and Western churches, and mentions the Battle of Manzikert. He
describes the importance of the city’s long existence under the Greeks as
providing a barrier for the West, allowing it to slowly develop a culture as
established and civilized as the Greeks in Constantinople.[131]
Overall, it appears clear the majority of historians would agree that the
factors mentioned above by Muller all contributed to the fall of Constantinople
in 1453. The Fourth Crusade marked an altering moment in history for the
Byzantine Empire. Once the Byzantines regained their capital city, they never
fully recovered economically. The schism of the Eastern and Western churches
undoubtedly placed Constantinople in a more isolated position with very few
allies. Even when attempts were made to
unite, it was done out of desperation, not sincerity, and ultimately, the union
established at the Council of Florence barely helped if it did not simply make
matters worse for Byzantium. Finally, the military situation of the Ottomans
and their position as a rising power entering Europe gave Constantinople a slim
chance of survival. These elements, as well as the outcome of the battle itself
were all significant in contributing to the city’s fall and the end of the
Byzantine Empire.
[1] Philip Sherrard, Byzantium, ed. by Time-Life Editors,
(New York: Time-Life Books, 1962), 42-43.
[2] Funk & Wagnalls Standard Reference
Encyclopedia, vol. 5. s.v. “Byzantine Empire.”
[3] Roger Crowley, 1453: The Holy
War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West (New York: Hyperion,
2005), 12-13.
[5] Lord Kinross, Hagia Sophia, Ed. by Editors of
Newsweek Book Division, (New York: Newsweek, 1972), 17.
[6] Funk & Wagnalls, s.v.
“Byzantine Empire.”
[7] Kinross, 46.
[8] J. M. Hussey, The Byzantine World (New York: Harper
and Row, Publishers, 1961), 9.
[9] Roger Crowley, 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and
the Clash of Islam and the West (New York: Hyperion, 2005), 6.
[10] Sherrard, 161.
[11] Ibid, 166.
[12] Philip Mansel, Constantinople:
City of the World’s Desire, 1453-1924, (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin Press,
1995), 2-3.
[13] Gunther of
Pairis, The Capture of Constantinople:
The Hystoria Constantinopolitana of Gunther of Pairis, ed. and trans. Alfred
J. Andrea (Philadelpia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), 99.
[14] Mansel, 2-3.
[15] Kinross, 66.
[16] Funk & Wagnalls, s.v.
“Byzantine Empire.”
[17] Kinross, 70-72.
[18] Gunther of Pairis, 82-83.
[19] Steven
Runciman, A History of the Crusades,
vol. 3, The Kingdom of Acre and the Later
Crusades (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 111-117.
[20] Gunther of Pairis, 90-91.
[21] Ibid, 90.
[22] Ibid, 90-91.
[23] Jonathan
Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack
of Constantinople, (New York: Viking Penguin, 2004), 185-188.
[24] Kinross, 70-72.
[25] Kinross, 72-73.
[26] Robert of
Clari, The Conquest of Constantinople,
trans. Edgar Holmes McNeal (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press,
1996), 101.
[27] Herbert J.
Muller, The Loom of History (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 256-257.
[28] Kinross, 554
[29] Muller, 257.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Sherrard, 165.
[32] Robert of Clari, 1.
[33] Ibid, 12-17, 22.
[34] Gunther of Pairis, 3.
[35] Ibid, 96-99.
[36] Ibid, 6.
[38] Robert of Clari, 24-25.
[39] Muller, 260.
[40] Paul Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (London:
The Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain
and Ireland, 1966), 26.
[41] Hussey, 72.
[42] Runciman, 469.
[43] Ibid, 477.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Phillips, xiii-xv.
[46] Ibid., 320.
[47] William Ragsdale Cannon, History of Christianity in the Middle Ages:
From the Fall of Rome to the Fall of Constantinople, (New York: Abingdon
Press, 1960), 33-34.
[48] Ibid, 105.
[50] Crowley, 66-67.
[51] Cannon, 121-128.
[52] Ibid, 130-131.
[54] Cannon, 153,155.
[55] Ibid, 287-288.
[56] Kinross, 87.
[57] Cannon, 288.
[59] Cannon, 289.
[60] Ibid, 289-290.
[61] Kinross, 88.
[63] Ibid, 102-103.
[64] Ibid, 103.
[65] Sherrard, 97-98.
[67] Mansel, 6.
[69] Funk & Wagnalls, s.v.
“Byzantine Empire.”
[70] Cannon, 67-70.
[71] Kinross, 56.
[72] Cannon, 56.
[73] Sherrard, 163.
[74] Keegan, 198-199.
[75] Muller, 254.
[76] Robert Payne, The Holy Sword: The Story of Islam from
Muhammad to the Present (New York: Collier Books, 1959), 271.
[77] Payne, 272-273.
[78] Ibid, 272-273.
[79] Ibid, 273.
[80] Ibid.
[81] Ibid, 274.
[82] Bernard Lewis, Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman
Empire (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), 17-18.
[83] Payne, 274.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Kinross, 87.
[86] Payne, 275.
[87] Ibid, 275-276.
[88] Hussey, 91.
[89] Payne, 276-277.
[90] Ibid, 278-279.
[91] Ibid, 279-280.
[92] Bernard Lewis,
ed. and trans, Islam: From the Prophet
Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople, Vol. 2, (New York: Harper &
Row, Publishers, 1974), xxii-xxiii.
[93] Wittek, 2-3.
[94] Mansel, 5.
[95] Crowley, 6-7.
[96] Lewis, Islam: From the Prophet to the Capture, xxii-xxiii.
[97] Ibid.
[98] Crowley, 33.
[99] Kinross, 88.
[100] Nicolo Barbaro,
Diary of the Siege of Constantinople,
1453, Trans. J.R. Jones (New York: Exposition Press, 1969), 27.
[101] Payne, 280.
[102] Kinross, 90.
[103] Ibid.
[104] Ibid.
[105] Payne, 280.
[106] Barbaro, 33-35.
[107] Payne, 280.
[108] Kinross, 92.
[109] Payne, 280-281.
[110] Ibid, 281.
[111] Ibid.
[113] Bernard Lewis, Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman
Empire, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), 5.
[114] Barbaro, 599-62.
[115] Payne, 281..
[116] Kinross, 99.
[117] Ibid.
[118] Ibid, 99-100.
[120] Kinross, 101.
[121] Crowley, 261.
[122] Barbaro, 5.
[123] Ibid, 61.
[124] Crowley, 15.
[126] Wittek, 51.
[127] Ibid., 51.
[128] Mansel, 13.
[130] Cannon, 315.
