The Last Empire

The siege of Constantinople, in 1453, is a great story. I wonder if it would have been better if Constantine Palaelogus had surrendered to Mehmed's terms. In many ways the story is one of those last stand battles and adds romanticism to history. Should they have surrendered or not? I do believe it was a fulfillment, to the Muslims, of an Islamic belief that the city would be taken. I don’t have the verse right now but I will add it later. It was a sad time for my Greek ancestors and the final end of the once great Roman Empire. All things come to an end and like the E. Roman Empire someday the USA will face the same fate. This is my article but A&E is welcomed to put it on their online magazine. The title "Last Empire" comes from the belief, by the Byzantine Romans, that the final end of the city marked the return of Christ and that they would be the last empire at the end times. Of course we all know this did not happen.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/05/last-empire.html



Edited by eaglecap - 26-Aug-2011 at 18:27

I agree, surrender was not really an option for Constantine. He could have done it, but he wouldn't have want to live with the knowledge that he had lost the city and the Empire. And if you see how Mehmet II treated the last Emperor of Trebizond, David, it makes you think that maybe dying in battle while defending Constantinople wasn't such a bad choice. David surrendered in 1461, got a pension but two years later he was executed with three of his sons...