Fall of Constantinople 29th May 1453

Originally posted by Mortaza That wall and cannon discussion is stupid. Ottomans did not destroyed wall, they entered city from a gate. So We can easy see, cannons did not helped ottomans much. walls resisted. And I am sure you can find a lot castle who resist more numerous enemy more than 60 day.

Originally posted by Constantine XI 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 You say that the "Latin elites" butchered pagans in "many parts" of the western empire.  We are not discussing "many parts" of the western empire here.  We are discussing the situation involving Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and the Mosque/Church of Cordoba.  Do you have any references regarding a butchering of pagans in Cordoba when the original church was built?  I have never seen one.  I have however (as I am sure you have as well) read of the butchery that took place in Constantinople during Mehmet's capture of the city and seizure of Hagia Sophia.  I am aware of the Greek Phanar district and that they were allowed to practice there religion.  Perhaps you should also mention that they were treated as second class citizens and had most (eventually all) of their historic places of worship seized and converted into mosques.  Doesn't sound like things were as prosperous for them as you claim.

As I said, they survived, the pagans did not. It is fairly evident who got the better of the two deals, the Christians were a good deal more ruthless in their treatment of pagans. One group was better off than the other.

Originally posted by R_AK47 I never said that the Christian conversions were all peaceful.  I still don't think your argument stands.  Whether or not the Christian conversions were as bad as a foreign invasion is not the point.  It was still not a foreign invasion.  You are trying to compare a population's religion change (whether it was peaceful or not) with a brutal invasion/conquest of a population by a ruthless foreign power.  Two completely different types of situations.

You didn't say the Christian conversions were peaceful, you assumed it when you said the "population changed its religion" and considered this somehow less traumatic than a foreign invasion. Such a statement indicates you believe the Christian line that populations in the empire converted peacefully, a great fallacy.

Also how are the two situations different? In both instances there was stealing of religious property, massacres, discrimination and the forced conversion of the common people by a class who they had little in common with. Sounds like two very similar situations to me.

Originally posted by R_AK47 The following quote from a few pages back implies that it was wrong for the Spaniards to take the Cordoba mosques.  You said that they "re-stole something that they earlier had not been strong enough to defend".  Stealing is considered wrong by most people, so when you say that they stole something it implies that you think it is wrong.  So as you can see, you were not really misquoted after all.  You are the one who is being "silly" about this entire argument and in fact have misquoted me numerous times throughout this debate.  You wrote in your last post that I have a "narrow Christian vs. Everyone else mindset".  The word "everyone else" encompases an enourmous amount of groups, cultures, and beliefs.  The fact that I have argued on behalf of the Christians in all of the Christian vs. Muslim conflicts we have discussed does not mean that I am against "everyone else" unless you consider everyone else to be muslims which is of course not true.  You also quoted me as saying "all the Christian conversions were peaceful" which I never said.  Your ridiculous defence of Mehmet, a man who destroyed what was left of an empire we both respect, is pointless and has now degenerated into you making false attacks against me.

Again you make assumptions. If you had paid attention you would see my point is that Mehmet II was doing what all medieval conquerors did, he was no better and no worse. My example of the Spaniard actions in Cordoba on two occasions is simply proof of that. But you once again interpret this (wrongly) into your moralistic view of the situation, unable to break free from your determination to demonise Islam in order to vindicate your self righteous views on Christianity.

There is also plenty of evidence that Christians launched wholescale attacks on pagans, you have actually even been in discussions regarding it before. The icon of St Nicholas tearing down pagan structures cannot be more evident. But if that isn't enough for you, there are the riots in Alexandria which burnt down the great library and torutured the pagan scholar woman Hypatia to death. There is the removal of the statue of Victory from the Senate house in Rome itself, objected to by a majority of Senators and followed soon after by a military revolt lead by pagans. Quite clearly the local pagans in the Western Empire were enormously unhappy with the imposed Christian religion from the east, their revolt enjoying alot of local support and only being crushed by the eastern Empire's army. Want more evidence? How about the universal declaration by Theodosius I banning all pagan worship, confiscating all pagan property and calling for the death and torture of all pagans who refused conversion in 392? The evidence that paganism was wiped out with brutality is overwhelming, only someone totally lacking in the education of Roman history could naively believe the Christian conversions were a peaceful affair. The declaration of Theodosius and the actions across the breadth and width of the empire are proof of a fairly universal policy of persecuation and violence against pagans in the west. Why should Cordoba be an exception?


Edited by Constantine XI - 14-Jun-2006 at 17:42

it appears the link may not work. In that case go to google and just type in "what islam took from byzantium" and it should be the first link.

Edited by arch.buff - 16-Jun-2006 at 01:20

Originally posted by Constantine XI Yes, arch.buff, but that is why in my reply i distinguished the Christians as Catholics (i.e. coming from the realm of Latin Christendom as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox branches). Both Islamic and Byzantine architecture was more advanced than the simple romanesque buildings which the highly argrarian people of Western Europe built in the rare instances they possessed the resources. This disparity between architectural quality continued until the High Middle Ages (roughly 11th - mid 14th centuries) when the innovations made by Latin Christendom enabled them to hold a candle to Islam and Byzantine architecture. However, in the early medieval period the Latin Christians tended to have less advanced architecture, a reflection of their weaker economy and smaller urban culture.

Edited by Chilbudios - 16-Jun-2006 at 04:19

5th-8th centuries is a weird time span for the previous claims.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Western Europe was still able to produce impressive buildings, but taking one look at the palaces of Cairo or the Haghia Sophia must surely be enough to convince anyone that the West was behind the Byzantine and Islamic worlds in architectural splendour. Basilicas were their best piece of work after the fall of Rome, new ones being a rare sight in themselves. I am specifically referring to the period in the aftermath of the fall of Rome, 5th-8th centuries, when the plainess and simplicity of Western architecture compared to that in the East Mediterranean was easy to spot.

Edited by arch.buff - 20-Jun-2006 at 03:38

Originally posted by Constantine XI Of course I understand that Western Europe was in a bad spot, which is why for a long time their architecture fell behind that of the East Mediterranean. Events in history are the logical outcome of the circumstances of the time, never of the supposed moral righteousness of one side or another. I think that thanks to the insinuations of a certain somebody that discussions involving comparisons between the Christian and Islamic world are becoming moralistic tug-of-wars in here. I have been striving hard to avoid this by displaying both sides of the coin where necessary, that being the only reason I raised the issue of the lower standard of Catholic architecture in the early medieval period. I hope that these discussions can continue, without antagonistic bias where one side attempts to settle the present world conflicts by demonising the past of what they consider to be their enemies today. To be frank, I couldn't give a damn if the topic involved Christians, Muslims, aborigines or eskimos. A lively yet impartial discussion where people explore history properly is what is needed, not self righteous agenda pushing. The medieval forum has traditionally been a very well behaved section of AE and I intend on keeping it that way.

Originally posted by Constantine XI As I said, they survived, the pagans did not. It is fairly evident who got the better of the two deals, the Christians were a good deal more ruthless in their treatment of pagans. One group was better off than the other.