Fall of Constantinople 29th May 1453

Yep Kotumeyil also i think this is a good source:

It's located in the Patriarchate.

1.Mohamed II first let his men to loot ,massacre ,rape and destroy.

Then he co-operated with the "anthenotikoi" part (anti-unification part -with catholic church). Patriarch Gennadios was one of them (@Kotumeyil).

It was a rational and clever politic action since he was counting on the hate of orthodox zelots againgst catholics,giving them privileges and aliance with them,(puting them on the head of the Greeks),assured less posibilities for help by the West.-this could be a headache for him.

But any serious person (i said serious) cannot deny that the entry in the city was followed by large scale slaughter.

@Day
In 1453 Galata was not controlled by Byzantines.It was a colony of the Genoese and (although other Genoese did) Galata didnt helped against the Turks during the siege.

I wouldnt expect to be accused as a member of nationalistic forum ( i have already expressed my opinion for this stupidity in the thread: "stormfront") by someone who called the massacre of Chios (1822-35.000 killed civilians recorded)-"so called massacre"(!)

Anyway-the topic is 29 May 1453,and the facts of this day.







Edited by Digenis - 02-Jun-2006 at 15:20

Originally posted by R_AK47 Originally posted by Bashibozuk   He allowed the Rums have Hagia Sophia as a sanctuary forever, even if it was turned into a mosque.     What are you talking about?  He allowed the Rums (Greeks I assume you are refering to) to "have" Hagia Sophia as a "sanctuary forever"?  The intolerant Mehmet stole the most important religious building of the Orthodox faith from them and modified it (ruined it actually) into a mosque.  Only muslims were allowed into the building until it was changed into a "museum" about 100 years ago.  I don't see how you can even try to claim Mehmet's outrageous actions as acts of tolerance.  Mehmet was a thief who stole an entire city from its rightful inhabitants.

And I think you are one of the last person to talk about history. A lot of nations captured cities. You are not suitable to discuss history

Originally posted by Komnenos To convert the most important religious building of the conquered faith into a place of worship of one's own, was the most natural and logical action to take. Any self-respected conqueror would do the same.

Like who?

Originally posted by Digenis Originally posted by Komnenos To convert the most important religious building of the conquered faith into a place of worship of one's own, was the most natural and logical action to take. Any self-respected conqueror would do the same. Like who?

Ferdinand and Isabella with the Muslim mosques in Spain. The old Aztec temple in Tenochtitlan was torn down to build a Catholic Cathedral after Cortes took the city. The English were happy to expel the Celtic clergy from their churches when they conquered Ireland and replace them with ones who adhered to the Latin liturgy. The Venetians coveted the Haghia Sophia for themselves when they took Constantinople in 1204, making it a Catholic place of worship. It was a pretty standard thing to do, not very nice to have to suffer but you only suffered such a dishonour if you weren't strong enough to protect your nation from such actions. The Byzantines had a somewhat similar habit of making the Bulgarian church subordinate to their own when they had the power to do so. In the medieval era, might meant right.

Originally posted by Komnenos   To convert the most important religious building of the conquered faith into a place of worship of one's own, was the most natural and logical action to take. Any self-respected conqueror would do the same.

Originally posted by R_AK47  Why is Mehmet so respected and exonerated by you while you demonize the crusaders for doing the same thing?  The things he did were far worse than anything the crusaders ever did.  Interesting double standards

I am afraid() i have to agree with R_Ak

That's a general attitude in the West-The confrontationof  anti-muslim feelings ,and glorification of the West ,guides many people on the other side:
to purify the acts of the "ex-evil" (such Mohamed)

For the examples:i would agree only with the spanish and muslim spain.The other examples are either not changing religion or destruction of temples.
I would add also the Parthenon's convert to Church of Mary.

As for the churches in Asia Minor.
Unfortunately there is almost nothing left of them.And the fact that Cppadocia's underground churches survived is due to the fact that they are underground-and so not destroyed.

what you all say or do you cant convince some people even with historical documents. Even if mehmet II and his army entered constantinople with tulip in his hands im dead sure it gotten told whole different then it whas by Greeks self.

What do you expect of some Greeks who say they lost ww1 because of the emperialist forces....

So i'll say save your time and move on.

CANT WE JUST ALL AGREE THAT IN THE END IT WAS A GOOD THING THAT CONSTANTINOPLE FELL?