Fall of Constantinople 29th May 1453

Originally posted by Digenis [QUOTE=Bulldog] Well an army of 200.000 with cannons...against 8000 men....Doesnt seem like a genious strategy.

Originally posted by xi_tujue against 8000 men inside a city who is basicly one of the greatest fortres ever dude. They should have surenderd a long time a go but Respect standing untill the end. And I doubt that there were 200.000 men strong at that moment. Why localise so many troops if you can't attack your enemy. When you have other fronts to fight. 200.000 Turks for 8000 greeks c'mon no disrespect. the Turks were definitlly in way higher number but 200.000

Edited by R_AK47 - 13-Jun-2006 at 10:43

Originally posted by R_AK47 Originally posted by xi_tujue against 8000 men inside a city who is basicly one of the greatest fortres ever dude. They should have surenderd a long time a go but Respect standing untill the end. And I doubt that there were 200.000 men strong at that moment. Why localise so many troops if you can't attack your enemy. When you have other fronts to fight. 200.000 Turks for 8000 greeks c'mon no disrespect. the Turks were definitlly in way higher number but 200.000   Regardless of whether or not the turks had 100000 or 200000 men they still had a tremendous numerical advantage in the battle.  As Digenis said, they also had cannons.  With such an enourmous force against only 8000 defenders, I don't see how anyone can claim the the turkish capture of the city was a brave, glorious conquest.  The only part that involves bravery and glory was the defence of the Greeks and Italian allies against this horde.  Mehmet was actually incompetent, remember, he nearly lost, even with all of these advantages.  The fact that he had to split the tiny defence force up by placing his navy inside the Golden Horn is proof of that.  If he was so great, then why couldn't he take on all of the few defenders with his enourmous army and cannon?  Even with the defenders split up (due to the navy within the Golden Horn) the only reason the turks won was because a tired defender forgot to lock a gate in the walls.   Regarding my earlier posts about the 4th crusade.  I know that they pillaged and plundered Constantinople.  I was not saying that they did not.  My posts were in answer to Bulldogs claims that the turks were more tolerant conquerers of the Greeks than the western Europeans.  My posts were made to show that he was wrong and that in fact the turks were just as harsh or harsher of rulers.

Edited by xi_tujue - 13-Jun-2006 at 11:36

Originally posted by Komnenos   There is of course the famous saying that allegedly circulated in Constantinople in the last days of the Empire: "Rather the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the Pope." Don't know if its apocryphal or not, but if it isn't , who can blame the Byzantines for that.

-There were 2 parties within the Empire the last years of her life:
Anthenotikoi and Enotikoi (opposing and supporting the unification of the churches)
-There was a general popular dislike and suspicion for the Westerns.
-In some cases native sopposed the Westerns in favor of the Turks.

What has this to do with the following crap ???  :
"If instead of the Turks a European power had conquered the Byzantiums today's Greeks would be latin speaking Catholics whose land would be owned by wealthy European land-owners while the Greeks made to work the land and left as a backwards third-world country today." -Bulldog

Also Bulldog although Turkey is owned by Turks  is a third- world country today.

Τhe canons that Ottoman army had at the siege of Constantinople had been made by a Hungarian engineer.At first this engineer was with Byzantines(Romans) but because the state hadnt got money to pay him offred eventually  his services to the Sultan.The canons that Ottoman army had were slow-moved and the Turkish soldiers needed above an hour to put a stone ball into one of them so the defenders had much time to repair quickly some damages at the walls.The defenders were about 10.000 (7.000 Byzantines-Romans and 3.000 westerns, mainly Italians)

Edited by Greek Hoplite - 14-Jun-2006 at 02:47

@Greek Hoplite :
The statue of Konstantinos Paleologos is unhistorical.
He appears t owear a klibanion and holds a curved sword(!)
It s almost sure that the emperor ,as well as the nobles in 1453 were wearing western full plate panoplies-probably from italian swordsmiths.

(i think there are 2 such identical statues-one outside Athens cathedral-(mitropoli),and one in Mystras.)

Originally posted by Mortaza sieging a standart castle need 10 to 1 superiority. So when It comes to istanbul, one of best castle ever built, 100.000 to 8000 superiority is normal. Also no need to overestimate cannons, They were slows and Byzantium had time to repair what these cannons destroyed. Also 50-60 day is not so much resistance, remember they were inside of a castle.

Originally posted by R_AK47 Originally posted by Constantine XI 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.

A population changing its religion? You euphemise an atrocity. The pagans were converted with butchery by the Latin elites in many parts of the Western Empire. The Turks also used butchery to take from others. Either way if I were the poor commoner whose place of worship had been taken and my family killed, both situations are equally horrendous. Both situations were practically the same, though as a side note I should point out that after 1453 a large Greek population lived in Phanar district and prospered, free to practice their religion for the most part.. The same cannot be said of the pagans, they were given a choice between conversion or death

Originally posted by R_AK47 Originally posted by Constantine XI 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 You are not getting the point.  You are trying to compare the actions that took place when a population changed its religion (and therefore modified its places of worship) to a foreign power invading a nation (and forcibly converting the inhabitants and their places of worship).  These are two completely different types of historical events.  The pagans and Christians you speak of in your argument were both part of the same empire and often of the same culture/population.  This is completely different from the situation that took place in Constantinople in 1453.  Your argument collapses once again. See my above explanation. Your view that all the Christian conversions were peaceful is totally erroneous, the Christian conversions and oppressions were as bad as a foreign invasion. The pagans often had to put up with Christianity imposed by foreigners, either from the far away priests of Rome of from some equally violent foreign tribe such as the Visigoths. It is naive to think that the Christian conversions were all some happy and peaceful affair with cotton candy, fun and games. My argument still stands. Originally posted by R_AK47 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. [QUOTE=Constantine XI]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.   [quote=R_AK47]What makes you think that the mosque that was built in Cordoba was "much improved and architecturally stunning complex" in comparison to the original church/pagan temple that occupied the site?  Do you have drawings or plans of the original structure that you have compared with the current one to determine this?  I have never seen any.  According to your flawed logic, it is okay for someone to steal, murder, etc as long as the person is able to avoid capture for a long length of time.  I still argue that your argument of "equitable thinking" has nothing to do with it.  The fact is, no matter what you argue, Mehmet's actions were still wrong and would be considered intolerant and illegal by nearly every standard.  If might means right in the medieval world and conquerors have the right to do what they want with conquered buildings, then why do you claim that it was wrong of the Spaniards to convert the Cordoba mosque into a church?  You are using a flimsy argument involving the Roman Empire changing religion to support your claims?  Doesn't sound like you are being very "impartial" in your examination of the situation.

I didn't say it was ok to take the building, simply that the building was an improvement over the old one. The Arab conquerors, having a much more developed urban culture, had alot more to offer architecturally than Catholic Europe in the early Medieval period, it's simply a fact. I do know for a fact that Romanesque churches of the early medieval period (which would have been the design of the previous Christian structure) would at best have simply been a basilica. That was the best Late Rome in the West had to offer, I consider such a design inferior to what the Moors built in Cordoba. Even in the High Middle Ages the less advanced nations such as France and England moved away from romanesque designs to gothic, because gothic was far more useful.

Also, don't misquote me. Where did I say it was wrong for the Spaniards to take the Cordoba mosque? I didn't make such a claim, it makes you look silly if you claim a person says something when they did not. I simply said that Mehmet was doing what any other successful conqueror in his period did. I didn't say it was good or bad or justified, simply that it was typical, normal and to be expected. I claimed that Mehmet played by the rules of his days and lived up to the norms of his period, not the post-Enlightenment and post-Geneva Convention period that we belong to. If you can get yourself out of this narrow Christian vs. Everyone else mindset then maybe you can better understand the issues being discussed.


Edited by Constantine XI - 14-Jun-2006 at 08:20

Originally posted by Constantine XI The Arab conquerors, having a much more developed urban culture, had alot more to offer architecturally than Catholic Europe in the early Medieval period, it's simply a fact.

How "a much more developed urban culture" is identified? By having the largest city? The largest number of cities? Contrary to more popular opinions, some parts of the Western Europe preserved a degree of urbanization from Antiquity to modern days. On the other hand, many of the Muslim urban centers from Spain were in fact settlements (many already having an urban character) preserved or built during the Visigothic reign, a Christian Catholic state at the time of Arab conquest. Not to say that some elements from the Mozarabic architecture (like the horseshoe arch) were developed during the previous Visigothic period.

Originally posted by Digenis The statue of Konstantinos Paleologos is unhistorical. He appears t owear a klibanion and holds a curved sword(!) It s almost sure that the emperor ,as well as the nobles in 1453 were wearing western full plate panoplies-probably from italian swordsmiths.