Why did Constantine XI refuse 2 surrender?

Why did Constantine XI refuse to surrender?
By eaglecap

The Byzantine Greeks fought against great odds and faced an Ottoman army of about 85,000 soldiers vs. 7,000 defenders.   The odds were stacked againt the Greeks but yet the Emperor and his subjects refused to surrender. The Ottomans were just as determined to take the city.

The Turks had sought to enter the city with a fanatic spirit because the Prophet, in the Qu’ran, offered them a special place in paradise. Sultan Mehmet only mimicked the Prophet Muhammad when he said, "...even if some of us should die, as in natural in war, and meet our destined end, you know well from the Qu’ran what the Prophet says, “that he who dies in battle shall dine whole in body with Mahomet, and drink with him in paradise and he shall take his rest in a green spot and fragrant with flowers, enjoying the company of women and virgins and he will bath in gorgeous baths. All these things he will enjoy in that place by God's favor."
Despite facing such great odds the Byzantines would defend their ancient Christian capital, with great tenacity, against the armies of Mehmet.

Mehmed himself was very determined:
The Sultan replied that it was not possible for him to withdraw, “either I take the city or the city takes me alive!” But, if you wish to withdraw from the city in peace I will give you the Peloponese and to your brothers I will grant other Provinces and we shall be friends. If I am forced to take the city by siege then I will slay you and your Nobles and allow my troops to pillage the surviving population. It is sufficient even if the city is empty of its people.

Norwich Julius John. Byzantium; The Decline and Fall, Alfred A. Koupf, New York: 1996

At least two reasons come to mind but what else caused him to refuse to surrender the last bastion of the Romans?

Constantine XI reply, I think, gives us a hint as to why they refused to surrender their beloved capital.

1.     “For it was not possible to take the city from the Romans and turn it over to the Turks. Were we to do this, along what road or in what place or Christian City could they settle where the inhabitants would not spit upon the Romans and revile them and mortify them? And not only Christians but also Turks and Jews would treat them with contempt.” Also, he had hoped add from the Christian west would arrive but sadly it did not.

Dourkas, Decline and fall of Byazantium to the Ottoman Turks - translated by Harry J. Magoulias – Wayne State University Press 1975 Detroit, 218


2.     The Byzantines believed that the angel of the lord would appear before the column of Constantine the Great and hand a sword to a common man. At this point the Greeks would chase the Ottoman back to the borders of Persia. I will put my source on this after I find it.

Of course not all of the defenders were so positive:

People remembered the ancient prophetic books from the time of the earlier Arab siege, their gnomic, oracular verses were widely recited; “misfortune to you, city of the seven hills, when the twentieth letter is proclaimed on your ramparts. Then the fall will be near and the destruction of your sovereigns.” The Turks were seen as an apocalyptic people signifying the last judgement, a scrooge sent by God as a punishment for Christian sins.

Runciman, Steven.The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Cambridge University Press 1975, 173

He seemed to be under a lot of pressure but yet he stood by his people to the very end. As an ethnic Greek I think of his acts as being heroic but that is only my opinion- please do not turn this into a Greek vs. Turk thread. I have great respect for Mehmed as the leader of his people.

Looking at only the man - why do you think Emperor Constantine Palaeologus refused to surrender to the Sultan Mehmed?



Edited by eaglecap - 23-Feb-2009 at 23:10

Tell me, would you want to go down in history as the man who surrendered Constantinople, bad enough being the man who lost it.

I think these are all valids points-

hey Byzantine I would love to read this letter- do you have a link?

Of course, his father Manuel II bowed his neck to the Ottomans and became a vassal of the Sultan. In his letters you can see a kind of sad resignation to a very depressing situation.

Originally posted by Sparten Tell me, would you want to go down in history as the man who surrendered Constantinople, bad enough being the man who lost it.

I think he was aiming more at a ceasefire. It worked enough times to establish a precedent for him to believe it a viable option. Previous Emperors were able to re-establish treaties and keep the city. Even the 4th Crusade was 249 years in the past at that moment. And the retaking of the city 192 years at the point. There was a precedent to holding it out and establishing an honorable peace without giving up the city.

Originally posted by eaglecap I think these are all valids points- hey Byzantine I would love to read this letter- do you have a link? Of course, his father Manuel II bowed his neck to the Ottomans and became a vassal of the Sultan. In his letters you can see a kind of sad resignation to a very depressing situation.

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor Originally posted by eaglecap I think these are all valids points- hey Byzantine I would love to read this letter- do you have a link? Of course, his father Manuel II bowed his neck to the Ottomans and became a vassal of the Sultan. In his letters you can see a kind of sad resignation to a very depressing situation.   The Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus: Text, Translation, and Notes. Translated by George T. Dennis. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae, v. 8. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Trustees for Harvard University, 1977.   It can be viewed in part at Googlebooks:   http://books.google.com/books?id=AdbgOudLnj4C   I will forewarn all who read it that Manuel wrote his letters in the typical Byzantine archaic, classicized style.  The details are obscured in flowery Attic Greek and rarely appear as they were in reality.  However, some useful information can be gleaned here and there about Manuel's contemporary situation.

Thanks I will look into ordering this for my library although most of my focus has been on Southwest history for the museum so in time I will read it.

Let me put it this way. Possession of the capital was the symbol of the right to claim to be ruler of the Romans and a legitimation of the Roman Empire. Surrendering the city is to cede that right to rule and to exist. Constantine was fighting not only for his rulership, but for the idea of the Empire itself.

Originally posted by Nestorian Let me put it this way. Possession of the capital was the symbol of the right to claim to be ruler of the Romans and a legitimation of the Roman Empire. Surrendering the city is to cede that right to rule and to exist. Constantine was fighting not only for his rulership, but for the idea of the Empire itself.   In short: you can't have an Emperorship without the Imperial capital.

Originally posted by Mortaza I do not believe it was the delusion that they could hold the city that kept them there.   It is. Istanbul was one of most protected castle at world(It is not a poor citadel) and as we both know, If someone want to take a castle, He should have more resources and soldiers.   It was not an easy war for Ottomans. Overestimating ottoman power and underestimating castle of istanbul is wrong. If Europeans sent help, Most probably, Ottomans could not take castle.

Constantinople prior to May 29th 1453 and Istanbul afterwards, although, I agree with your statement.

from Byzantine Emp:
It is interesting to note that Constantine XI is depicted in the statue wearing the klibanion and grieves.
eaglehat:
Do you think it is historically accurate for 1453? I have read numerous books about Byzantine warfare and armor but what do you think?

I know Istanbul is not a Turkish word and it came from a Greek word which meant THE CITY. Offhand I cannot recall the Greek word- Does anyone know???? Byzantine Emp or Mortaza what do you say?

Edited by eaglecap - 07-Apr-2009 at 01:49