Caliph Harun Al Rashid and Constantinople

Originally posted by azimuth i dont think its canon thing, how did the crusaders got into it? and about the siege, i have a question since Sultan Mehmet the First and Constantinople was in the Middle of the Ottoman lands, why didnt the Ottoman just Isolate the City for a couple of years until they surrender? ------ Harun reached Constantinople when he was a General at his father time, and made that treaty with the Empress, and didnt reach that close when he became Caliph since the byzantinums kept paying as per the agreement and the Caliph kept his word till later as per the sotry in the first post here.

Crusaders didn't get Constantinople with siege..

Actually, Byzantines were allied with the Crusaders, because their enemies were the same.Byzantine Empire was providing logistical support to the Crusade armies.So,they were letting the armies into their cities,too.

This had been the way before either,but in the Fourth Crusade, Latins decided to make a tragic change in their aims.After getting into the city, they decided to invade Constantinople instead of marching to Anatolia.

About the question regarding the isolation of city, isolation of Constantinople could just have been by laying siege upon the city, or controlling the sea or land ways leading to Constantinople

Laying siege for years is an expensive stuff, no state would have such power to do that. And controlling the sea or land ways for long time, even harder..Even though the Ottomans were controlling Thrace, in the Aegean Sea and Gallipoli Straits, Genoese and Venetian presence were showing its naval power, and Ottomans didn't have such a huge naval power till the middle of 16th century to get into such a naval competition with those Italian city-states.

 

 

yup isolation should be effective and could be a good success in the long run.,

i also want to point out that it was not the "aim" of islamic empires since the Abbasides to conquer Constantinople, they wanted it but since the byzantinums always propose a peace treaty and pay sometype of payment to spare their city the city stayed free.

IF the ottomans wanted constantinople without caring about any treaties and with only one goal that is to take the city. a seige and isolation of the city, no one go in or out, no business and nothing then in the long run they will have to surrender.

the fall of Constantinople was a decision made by Sultan Mehmet Fatih and he achieved it.

 

i dont think its canon thing, how did the crusaders got into it?

and about the siege, i have a question since Sultan Mehmet the First and Constantinople was in the Middle of the Ottoman lands, why didnt the Ottoman just Isolate the City for a couple of years until they surrender?

------

Harun reached Constantinople when he was a General at his father time, and made that treaty with the Empress, and didnt reach that close when he became Caliph since the byzantinums kept paying as per the agreement and the Caliph kept his word till later as per the sotry in the first post here.

 

Originally posted by Spartakus As i have said and as Romios pointed out,it was not a paradise but the Byzantines were far more tolerant than the Latins .

Definitely true...Byzantines were far more tolerant and civilized comparing to Latins.It is told about the 1453 siege that the folk and leading people in Byzantine society had told the emperor that they would prefer the Ottomans to the Latins, due to the bitter times after 1204 and Latin intolerance compared to Ottoman tolerance.

Starting from the era of Constantine, there was a christian doctrine of suppressing heretical forms of christianity. Among those were Arian christians - their form of christianity was similar to Judaism and generally they were friendly to jews - and a gnostic form of christianity called marcionism generally hostile to jews and judaism.  Jews themselves, would have been in very big trouble if their faith had been declared as an herecy like the other two but fortunately judaism had been acknowledged in the empire as a separate religion. The policy of the empire in the next 1500 years was to permit Jews to survive hence the concentration of fairly large masses of jews in specific cities of the empire. But also to surround jews with - from time to time -persecutions. Byzantine emperors passed many anti-jewish laws and prohibited christians from converting to Judaism. Many of the anti-jewish laws were not observed in practice except brief periods of persecutions.

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon That is a fact yes, but it is just to prove the point that the byzantines tried to convert the jews to christianity, while the turks let them go on with their religion

The Byzantines were far more tolerant towards the jews compared to the western Europeans,who when they set off on a crusade they slaugthered hundreds of Jews in every European city or village and made agrand-scale pogrom in order just to spread ''christian'' fanatism and zealotry among the masses.Or should we remember the Spanish who expelled all the jews of Spain that did not want to convert to Catholicism after the reconquista had ended?
As far as the Turks are concerned it depends on which turks you are speaking about.The Seljouk Turks in Asia Minor killed thousands of christian Greeks when fighting a Jihad against the Byzantines .The Ottomans were more tolerant but still they did not hesitate to slaughter whole communities when these communities revolted(In the 17th century in Epirus for example).
And believe me living in dhimmi status was not the best thing for the Greeks during the ottoman times.
 


Edited by RomiosArktos

That is a fact yes, but it is just to prove the point that the byzantines tried to convert the jews to christianity, while the turks let them go on with their religion

Most jewish communities in Byzantine empire were large and prosperous but they suffered discrimination. The hostility of the Byzantines to the jews can be explained in part by their influx into the empire by considerable numbers from the turn of the 10th century. It was also inserparable form their conviction that they were the chosen people of the new dispensation. Byzantine discrimination in rare cases merged into persecution like the Nicaean emperor John III Vatatzes that proved his orthodox credentials by ordering the conversion of all jews within his dominions.

Well Spartakus leeme ask you this, if the muslims were to attack Constantinople, would the jews help the city or the besiegers?

Decebal, if i have made any flammatory remarks plz pm them to me and i will see how "often" i made them. I do not wish to make any other confrontations between us "uncomfortable"

And RK the reason why i called the Byzantines "racist" was because they had no respect for the jews, or other religions for that matter in the lands that they dominated. Why were the egyptians so happy when they were liberated by the muslim conquests? It was necessary change for that time. And i believe the reason why the turks changed old churches in former Constantinople (like the Hagia Sophia) was more of a political statement than anything else (regime change). Other than that, i do not wish to be looked as someone very biased agaisnt the East Roman Empire. Heck, most of the Eastern Roman Empire actually wanted "out." The city of Constantinople was the definition behind the Empire.