Fall of Constantinople 29th May 1453

Originally posted by R_AK47 Your statement regarding Ferdinand, Isabella, and the muslim mosques of Spain is wrong.  The muslim mosques were built by muslim invaders after destroying Christian churches and cathedrals (in many cases, being built directly over the ruins).  The Church of Cordoba (built as a mosque) is a good example of this (it was originally a Visigoth church before the muslims tore it down and built their mosque on top of it).  Ferdinand and Isabella were simply restoring the sites to their previous condition, before intolerant invaders destroyed the original churchs.

Not really wrong at all. Most Christian churches in the early medieval period were not Christian to begin with. They typically started out as pagan places of worship, before the intolerant Christian church decided to steal these places and kill their followers. Guess your argument falls flat on its face. The Christians never had a God given right to these places, they took them through sword and thievery like any medieval people. So my example is even more valid than I supposed originally, the churches of early medieval Europe simply being another example of places of worship being stolen, Christians taking them from pagans who had worshiped at them for perhaps thousands of years prior.

Originally posted by R_AK47 This is equivalent to when the Byzantines reconquered Constantinople from the crusaders and converted Hagia Sophia back to an Orthodox church (from a Catholic cathedral).

Not really equivalent. The Byzantines actually constructed Haghia Sophia from the ashes of a previous church which burnt down during a riot, a building of ultimate pre-eminence to the Greeks. Ferdinand and Isabela captured a building their people had neither constructed nor which held any particular spiritual pre-eminence for the Spanish.

Also, the Haghia Sophia had been lost barely two generations before being recaptured. The Cordoba mosque had been constructed 8 centuries before the Spaniards had taken it. You cannot equate a reconquest of land lost less than 60 years before to land lost 8 centuries before. This is an example of your lack of equitable thinking.

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon CANT WE JUST ALL AGREE THAT IN THE END IT WAS A GOOD THING THAT CONSTANTINOPLE FELL?

Originally posted by Bashibozuk   (an evil, perverted person)    Watch your language kid. I guess you're passing the limits of criticizing.

My argument here is perfectly relevant and equitable thinking has everything to do with it. Your argument has a number of flaws which demonstrate your clear pro-Christian agenda, an agenda you follow while paying no heed to things such as weighing of evidence or examining both sides of a story.

Originally posted by R_AK47 A population changing religion and therefore adapting its existing religious buildings for the new religion is different than a conquering enemy invading their territory, converting religious buildings for their own uses, and settling their own people in the conquered territory to use the buildings.  The pagan places of worship you speak of where still being used by the same people when they were converted to Christian places of worship.  When the Turks converted churches into mosques they were converting them to worship in themselves, Christian Greeks were not allowed into the buildings.  That is why the buildings were stolen.  I highly doubt the resident Greeks were very supportive of Hagia Sophia becoming a mosque.

This is yet another example of a combination of either your historical ignorance or your sheer incapacity to see the deeds of Christians in a negative light thanks to your shameless bias. If you were better informed, or had the impartial qualities of the historian, you would know that the majority of pagan places of worship in the Western Empire were not peacefully turned into Christian places of worship. Instead, the newly Christian elites confiscated pagan property, tortured pagan leaders, excluded pagans from high positions and blatantly stole places of worship which had been pagan for centuries. In the Western Empire Christianity was often forcibly imposed, only after overwhelming violence and pressure against pagans did a majority of people convert to Christianity. Christians used violent means to alter religion in society. My earlier argument stands.

Originally posted by R_AK47 Equitable thinking has nothing to do with it.  It was just as wrong and illegal for the Turks to sieze Hagia Sophia as it was for other muslims to sieze the land that the church that originally occupied the site of the Cordoba mosque was built on.  Theft is theft.  Just because it took 8 centuries for the Spaniards to take back Cordoba and return the site of the mosque to its original use (as a church) does not mean that they did not have a right to do it.  The site was originally a Christian place of worship and they therefore restored the site and righted the wrong that the muslims had committed 8 centuries before.  Hagia Sophia was never a mosque or associated with Islam in any way before it was taken and converted by the Turks.  Example:  If someone steals your car and you find it many years later and take it back from the thief, does this mean that you stole the car from him?  Of course not, because it was originally stolen from you, you therefore would have a right to reclaim it.  You guys are using very strange logic in a desperate attempt to exonerate Mehmet's actions, but they are wrong no matter which way you look at it.

In reference to my first answer, the Cordoba "church" was originally a pagan temple. The Christians briefly stole it from the pagans for two to three centuries, before the building was levelled to make way for a much improved and architecturally stunning complex. Your claim the Christians were taking back what was rightfully theirs falls on its face, they simply re-stole something they earlier on had not been strong enough to defend.

I'm not exonerating Mehmet, simply saying his actions were typical of the bulk of medieval conquerors, Christian and Muslim alike. Equitability IS important. Your silly analogy makes me pose this question: would it be ok for your decendents 8 centuries into the future to steal the vehicle or something important from the descendents of a guy who stole your car yesterday? No, of course not. The passage of time makes a huge difference, you saying that it is ok to steal from others EIGHT CENTURIES after their ancestors stole from your ancestors is simply further proof of your lack of equitable thinking. You use the flimsiest of excuses to excuse Christian aggression, yet the moment a non-Christian is guilty of the same aggression you think they should be utterly condemned.

Also your claim that Mehmet's actions were illegal is baseless. In the Middle Ages the conqueror gained the right to do with conquered property what he wanted. Just like Ferdinand in Spain, Henry II in England, Emperor Constantine I and the anti-Paulician Emperor Michael III, Mehmet was exercising his power in exactly the same way as any other medieval conqueror. His actions were not illegal, because in the Medieval world, might meant right.


Edited by Constantine XI - 06-Jun-2006 at 06:02

Originally posted by Heraclius    I personally don't see a problem with Hagia Sophia having been converted into a mosque, at least this way it could be preserved and maintained, something the late Byzantines were unable to do.

?
Do you know that the mosaics were covered with plaster?
Today only fragments survived..
Any relics,and religious ornaments left by 1204,vanished.
As for preservation ,you can check the horrible condition that Haghia Sophia is today...Ready to collapse after a great earthquake...

Originally posted by Digenis Originally posted by Heraclius    I personally don't see a problem with Hagia Sophia having been converted into a mosque, at least this way it could be preserved and maintained, something the late Byzantines were unable to do. ? Do you know that the mosaics were covered with plaster? Today only fragments survived.. Any relics,and religious ornaments left by 1204,vanished. As for preservation ,you can check the horrible condition that Haghia Sophia is today...Ready to collapse after a great earthquake...

Originally posted by The Hidden Face the building is in terrible condition today Not only Hagia sophia, most of the Ottoman remains are in terrible condition as well. There isn't a special situation about the byzantine buildings. Guys, Keep in mind that Turkey is a poor country.

Even though Turkey is poor, she (the Turkish oligarchy) likes acting like a powerful country. Furthermore Turkish citizens also like it even If they are hungry.

But I share the same opinion that Turkish budget for her military is a big taboo in Turkey.

Originally posted by Bashibozuk  I wish we wouldn't be in such a threatening, dangerous, and unstable region with hostile enemies, so that we could have spent our worthy income on more schools and railroads instead of more F-16s to deal with daring Greek kamikazers.

but the orthodiox community would look after those buildings better.