(research paper)
Woe be to thee, O Constantinople,
seated on seven hills,
thou shall not continue a thousand years. 1
What made the majority of people in Constantinople believe in prophecies
saying that the city would not last forever and that they are doomed? In
the years before the Turkish conquest it was known that the reign of anti-Christ
could not long be delayed. What made the proud people and ancestors of
the Roman Empire lose all hope and will to react? After withstanding 22
previous sieges, the first in 340 BC and the last in 1437 AD, the Ottoman
army entered into the capital which Constantine had found as the heart
of the Christian Empire 2.
After three days of plundering that caused the city a misfortune comparable
only to the fall of Carthage 3,
the Sultan entered the church Hagia Sophia and prayed to Allah saying after
proclaiming the conversion of the church into a Mosque: "Here after
my capital is Istanbul". 4
Constantinople--the city that inspired many great men to admire, praise,
and desire it. Since its creation it was a strategic commercial, military,
and religious center. Its riches and charms were not only a source of admiration
but its attractiveness had necessitated a rigorous fortification and protection
from attacks and raids. In spite of being for more than 1000 years the
unconquerable and surely the wealthiest city, it stood on the crossroads
of the East and the West which proved to be an incessant source of troubles,
always being entangled in the interests of foreign peoples. It was the
conveyor of eastern and roman culture, the most significant commercial
and religious center and it can undoubtedly regarded as the heart of a
civilization incredibly contributed to the mankind. A bastion of orthodox
Christianity, it was conquered by the Crusaders--the "defenders"
of Christianity, and this colossal blow on it was one of the main causes
for the fall of the Empire under the fanatic and irresistible power of
the Ottoman Turks. Lead by the zeal of their religion and the skillful
leadership of Sultan Mehmed II they succeeded in subduing Constantinople
after a fierce siege. The mightiness of the noble city, however, has faded
long before that conquest. It had started at the end of the 10 century
with the numerous defeats in battles with the Turks and later on the Latin
aggression and constant threat from the North. The weakening and losses
of the Empire ended up with Constantinople as the only place left not conquered.
The church did not manage to resolve its theological debates of whether
to unite with the Roman church and receive help from the West, thus the
only possibility for survival disappeared.
Its legendary history is goes back as early a 431 BC when it participated
in the Peloponnesian on the side of Sparta. It was founded in 667 BC by
the Greeks who afterwards were conquered by the Romans in 196 AD after
a siege and declared by Constantine I the Great the capital of the Roman
Empire in the East. The favorable location of the city was the reason for
its numerous sieges and the appetites of different peoples to possess it.
As long as it was holding, the existence of the Empire was not threatened.
This fact was known by all the invaders who wanted to conquer or rule the
Roman Empire in the East. The main objective of Bulgarians, Serbs, Latins
and finally Turks was to conquer the great city because it meant power
and invincibility, accumulated wealth and culture, security and recognition.
One of the major explanations for the fall of Constantinople in the fatal
1453 is viewing it from the angle of the political consequences of the
Latin Conquest and fall of the city in 1204. According to Sir Edwin Pears
the capture of Constantinople was the necessary prelude to the Ottoman
Conquest and it was the cause that brought about the fall of the Roman
Empire in the East. 5
Being the strongest defense against Asia, the Byzantine
Empire received a tremendous blow from the Latin conquest. The main forces
of the East Empire were spent withstanding the Asian hordes which were
pushed by the Tartar immigration westward. It was continuously weakened
by the fight on two fronts. From the North it had for years to resist the
constant blows of Bulgarians, Comans, Patchinaks, Uzes and Serbs. This
was accompanied by an internal weakness in the Empire due to the transformation
that was taking place--the feebleness and impotence of the despotism and
its replacement by oligarchic regimes an the civil wars that followed.
6 This lessened
the strength and protective power of the Empire and the period of 250 years
after the the Latin conquest proved to be insufficient for it to recover.
Although it had gained considerable victories against the Second Bulgarian
Empire in the late thirteenth century due to the Tartar invasions and was
not troubled from the East, in the same period, because of the divisions
of the Seljukian Turks, the Empire did not have the resources for a quick
revival. In the fourteen century, the successful invasions of the Ottoman
Turks in the territories of Roumelia were to great extent due to the weakness
that the Empire still experienced from the devastation caused by the Fourth
Crusade. The savages of the crusaders had placed an immovable obstacle
to the union of the churches of the West and the East. It has caused an
antagonism of the Greeks towards the Latins which turned out to be the
tragedy of the city in the years before its conquest by the Ottomans.
During the period of a century and a half before the fall of Constantinople,
the Roman Empire in the East confronted a mighty enemy with inexhaustible
power. The new host1s deficiencies were immediately supplied by newcomers.1
The conquered territory in Asia Minor were the main areas for the recruitment
of soldiers for the Empire. More and more it had to depend on mercenaries
which was a major cause for the draining of the imperial treasury.
What caused an Empire with its roots in the very beginning of human history
to crack under the pressure of a newly born formation the Moslem Turks.
The reason could be traced back to the teaching of Mohammed. Unlike the
Christian religion of humbleness and self-denial, the Moslem ideal suited
very well the warlike horde of the Turks. It was expressed in the notion
that fighting the unbeliever was the highest duties of all. 7
The sins and crimes of a Moslem would automatically be canceled if he was
fighting against the infidels. If he dies in this fight, he does not have
to worry because he will immediately go to heaven where women will dance
for him and serve him everything he desires. Naturally, the adoption of
such doctrines by a barbaric mind will lead to remarkable access of fighting
power. 8 Everyone not accepting
them, however, is considered an unbeliever or infidel. As Sir Edwin Pears
points out: "An amount of fanaticism was created in fighting, which
at various times in the history of Moslem states has carried on their armies
irresistibly to victory". 9
This is why even after the Byzantine empire has literally slaughtered and
totally destroyed numerous and powerful armies of Turks, the struggle was
never ending. The final effect was the loss not only of its Asian territories
but by the time of the siege of Constantinople in 1453, the city was standing
alone as the only remained territory of the Empire.
Another significant factor that contributed to the downfall of Constantinople
was the incapabilty of the church to acceptt a union with the West. First
the luring mystical feature of the orthodox church was attacked by the
scholasticism of the West and the traditional theory of the church was
continuously threatened by new influences. This phenomenon inevitably lead
to bitter controversies and divisions in the eastern church itself. When
the question of whether a union with the Roman Church should be pursued,
the church was divided and did not have a joint strategy and goal when
it was obvious that without help from the West, the Empire could not survive.
Politicians, philosophers and intellectuals realized the importance and
imperativeness of a church union with a Christian adversary instead of
conquest by a much worse infidel enemy. Both Michael VIII and afterwards
John V saw the political advantages of the union, but soon understood that
the tradition is too much imbedded in the minds of the people and the schism
between the Roman and the Orthodox church is too wide open to be closed
so quickly as the situation required. From early times the two Christendom
had gone in different directions and there was an absolute disagreement
on many theological issues. They were especially arguing on the Procession
of the Holy Ghost, the Western dogma of Purgatory, the Latin addition of
the word Filioque to the Creed, is the bread at the Sacrament leaved or
unleaved and fundamentally contradicting themselves about the ecclesiastic
system. Even when a symbolic union with Rome was reached in Florence in
1439, due to the decisiveness and persistence of John VIII, it was impossible
to implement it. It only precipitated internal dissension in Constantinople.
Further attempts were abandoned because John feared that this would only
increase the division amongst people. The union also meant a submission
of the Eastern tradition to the rules and authority of Rome which was quite
unacceptable to the majority of people inConstantinople. There was no patriarch,
for all the worthy and capable men have left the city. The clergy and the
monks were blindlessly antagonistic and too proud of their faith and tradition
to accept the union. They were telling the people that the union will lead
to eternal damnation. To the ordinary people their fate in the following
world was more crucial than the present and they feared that the union
will not lead them to salvation. Having in mind the fresh memory of the
devastating conquest of the Latins and the importance of religion in the
lives of people at that time, we can easily understand their powerful resistance
towards the union. In this suicidal way the final death sentence of Constantinople
was signed by the hands of its own citizens. They were pessimistically
resigned to their fate and preferred to fall in the hands of the infidels,
knowing that this is probably the will of God, instead of resorting to
union with the heretic West. We can only feel pity that this conflict and
drama took place in an "atmosphere of material decay". 10
Another reason for the successful conquest of Constantinople by the Turks
that could not be left without mentioning is the intelligence, energy and
determination of their leader--Mehmed II. He was probably one of the ablest
men ever to become a Sultan. Mehmed II was very ambitious and persistent
in pursuing his goals. His craving for absolute power was combined with
extreme cruelty and no respect for human life. He was a great centralizer
of power and an unprecedented military genius. He had no trust in any of
his subordinates and no one could predict the nature of his thoughts and
decisions. He was, however, very young when he planned the siege of Constantinople
and that made the Western world and even Constantine, the last Emperor
of the Byzantine Empire, to underestimate his potential. From the very
start of his accession, Mehmed put much of his efforts in realizing his
old ambition--the conquest of Constantinople which in his words was "a
grand and populous city, the capital of the Ancient Romans, the very summit
of splendor and glory, which has become, so to say, the center of the world".1
He also saw in the city the heart of the empire and realized that as long
as Constantinople was in the hands of the Greeks, his own Empire was threatened.
The city, Mehmed II pointed out in an speech in front of his pashas was
the main barrier to further progress. The moment for attack has never been
so favorable.
The weakness of the city whose population and defensive powers were greatly
reduced by the constant Turkish sieges, could crack under the enormous
power of the Turkish army. 12 Mehmed
has made everything possible to accelerate the coming of this favorable
moment. He prevented the anticipated from Constantinople aid from the two
brothers of the Emperor who were ruling Peloponnesus by sending an army
there. He erected a formidable fortress on the European side of the Bosphorus
at the narrowest point, thus completely commanding the Straits. To the
protest of the Greek Emperor, Mehmed answered: "Have you the right
or the power to prevent my doing what I wish on my own territory? The two
sides of the Straits are mine--that of Asia Minor because it is peopled
by Ottomans, that of Europe because you are unable to defend it".
13 From these words, we can
see the confidence of Mehmed in the superiority of his power and on the
other hand the extreme weakness of Constantinople to respond adequately
to the increasing menace of the Turks.
To the people of Constantinople it seemed that nothing could stop the advance
of the Ottomans. They were expecting more a miracle to happen and safe
the city than that a reasonable help would come from the West. Even the
Grand Duke Notarus himself stated publicly that he would rather see the
turban of the Turks at Constantinople than the hat of a cardinal. 14
The inevitable was about to happen. The two enemies were
preparing for the decisive confrontation. The population of the city which
had numbered about a million in the past, was now no more than a hundred
thousand of which six thousand took arms to defend the city. The depopulation
of the city was due to the plague it had experienced and because many citizens,
especially the intellectuals found a more rewarding and secure means of
living in the West. Mehmed II knew very well that the city was in a considerable
decay. It was full of ruins and walls were guarding an almost empty territory
with many abandoned quarters. The predominant population was living in
misery and poverty. In many parts of the city you had the feeling that
you are in the country side. 15 It
is logical that Constantine was not able to recruit enough men to defend
the city walls, and although he spent all the available money to repair
and strengthen the walls it was not enough, knowing they were ill-kept
from his predecessors. The city was protected by a triple line of massive
walls and flanked by towers built by the Emperor Theodosius II about thousand
years ago. They were the most solid fortification in the Middle Ages--impregnable
to any enemy. Constantine, however did not have the needed number of men
to protect it adequately. Eight thousand men were very insufficient and
some historians think that if there were one or two thousand people more,
Constantinople could have withstood the attacks of the Turks. 16
Men were needed at the four miles of walls directly attacked
by the Ottoman Army and at the same time Constantine had to send more men
to the defenses along the line of the harbor where Mehmed had successfully
brought his ships, dragging them, by land. He did that cleverly going around
the chain that was stretched across the entrance to the Golden Horn and
was blocking the way of the Ottoman ships to the harbor.
Mehmed had, long before the actual siege, realized he would not be able
to conquer Constantinople using only conventional methods. A significant
reason for the victory of the Ottomans in 1453 was the use of cannons or
employing the gunpowder against the strength of the walls. The might of
his army consisted of a large fleet of war vessels, an army of about 150
000 men, including 12 000 janissaries--soldiers taken as little children
from their families (even from families of infidels) and specially trained
in military skills to serve as the élite army of the sultan. There
were 50 000 soldiers as regular army and the rest were irregulars and camp
followers. 17 The determination
of Mehmed to conquer the city should not be overlooked. The Sultan knew
that if he does not manage to make a successful assault on the city soon,
new reinforcements would come as did the four Genoese galleys that broke
the blockade of his ships and brought provisions from Chios to the city.
This is why he did not waste his time and decided that the final assault
would be made on May 29th after the bombardment made serious breaches in
the walls at three points. Before the fatal for the people of Constantinople
day, in a speech to his army leaders he said: "I give it [Constantinople]
over to you to pillage, to seize its incalculable treasure of men, women,
and boys, and everything that adorns it. You will henceforward live in
great happiness and leave great wealth to your children. The great gain
to all the sons of Othman would be the conquest of a city whose fame was
great throughout the world. The greater its renown, the greater would be
the glory of taking it by assault. A great city which had always been their
enemy, which had always looked upon them with a hostile eye, which in every
way had sought to destroy the Turkish power, would come into their possession.
The door would be open to them by its capture to conquer the whole of the
Greek Empire." 18 According
to Lord Eversley from this speech we assert that one of the major incentives
for the Moslem conquest is plunder and not religious fanaticism. 19
The plunder of the city and the capture of men, women and
boys for the sale in their harems was, however, not desired by Mehmed since
this was going to be his future capital and he did not want to have it
totally devastated by his warriors and populated only by Moslems. He was
obliged to grant three days of pillage which was required by the Religious
Law serîat. 20
It could be said, however that the capture of Constantinople
is not because of the will of the Sultan and his subjects to spread Islamism
because the cases in which the people of the city were forced to convert
to the Islam were rare. The victory of the Islam, however, was an immense
shock to Christiondom. The fall of the city secured its permenant foothold
in Europe as well as the longevity of the Europen part of the Turkish Empire.
The siege lasted fifty long days and the fall of Constantinople marked
the final tragedy and end of the Empire. With it, one of the most glorious
civilzation was wiped out. It was doomed because it did not have the economic
and political potentiality to cofront an empire which spread its territory
on almost all the Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor, an empire which had
the best military machine of the age, fighting the Holy War against the
unbelievers. For eleven centuries it has been the center of this magnificent
civilization of Bizantium which has preserved the legacy of the Ancient
world and gave the world the priceless knowledge of Roman law, Greek literature,
philosophy and learning. The Byzantine Empire did not fully extinguished--its
political and spiritual traditions survived and still live. The effects
of this significant cultural contribution can be observed even today. The
material environment that has to support this splendid culture, however
was not present. The city simply did not have the capacity to maintain
it.
Endnotes
1 The Antiquities of Constantinople by Pierre Gilles, translated by John Ball, p.180, an old prophecy interpreted afterwards by Tzetzes a little time before the Latin conquest
2 Steven Runcimen, The Great Church in Captivity, p.165 3 Lord Eversley, The Turkish Empire, Its Growth and Decay, p.87, Mahomet II ‘The Conquerer’
3 Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age 1300-1600, p.26
4 Sir Edwin Pears, The Fall of Constantinople being The Story of The Fourth Crusade
5 Sir Edwin Pears, The Fall of Constantinople being The Story of The Fourth Crusade, p. 400
6 Sir Edwin Pears, The Fall of Constantinople being The Story of The Fourth Crusade, p. 399
7 Sir Edwin Pears, The Fall of Constantinople being The Story of The Fourth Crusade, p. 20, Christianity and Islam
8 Sir Edwin Pears, The Fall of Constantinople being The Story of The Fourth Crusade, p. 20, Christianity and Islam
9 Sir Edwin Pears, The Fall of Constantinople being The Story of The Fourth Crusade, p. 21, Christianity and Islam
10 Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople , The Dying Empire, p. 9
11 The speech of Mehmed II before the day of the final assault recorded by the historian Christobolus, quoted by Lord Eversley, The Turkish Empire. Its Growth And Decay , pp. 81, London, T. Fisher Unwin, adelphi terrace, 1918
12 Lord Eversley, The Turkish Empire. Its Growth And Decay , p. 76; Sir Edwin Pears, The Destruction of the Greek Empire, p. 217
13 Lord Eversley, The Turkish Empire. Its Growth And Decay , p.75; Von Hammer, ii. p. 379
14 Lord Eversley, The Turkish Empire. Its Growth And Decay , p.77, (Gibbon, viii, pp. 287-91).
15 Alexander Van Millingen, M.A., Byzantine Constantinople, The Walls of the City and the Adjoining Historical Sites; Lord Eversley,The Turkish Empire. Its Growth And Decay ,p.76
16 Lord Eversley, The Turkish Empire. Its Growth And Decay , pp. 79, 85
17 Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age 1300-1600, p.23; Lord Eversley, The Turkish Empire. Its Growth And Decay , p.76
18 The speech of Mehmed II before the day of the final assault recorded by the historian Christobolus. Quoted by Lord Eversley, The Turkish Empire. Its Growth And Decay , pp. 81-82
19 Lord Eversley, The Turkish Empire. Its Growth And Decay , p.82
20 Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age 1300-1600, p.26
Runcimen, Steven. Byzantine Civilization. Fifth Impression
1959, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.,
Runciman, Steven. The Fall of Constantinople 1453. © Cambridge
University Press 1965, Published by the Syndics of the Cambridge University
Press.
Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State. Translated
from German by Peter Charanis with a Forword by Peter Charanis. Revised
Edition 1969, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Manufactured
in the US by Quinn&Boden Company, Inc., Rahway, N.J.
Pears, Edwin LL.B. The Fall of Constantinople Being the Story of the
Fourth Crusade. London, Longmans, Greens, and Co. 1885. Printed by
Spottiswoode and Co., New-Street Square.
Van Millingen, Alexander M.A. Byzantine Constantinople. The Walls of
the City and Adjoining Historical Sites. London, John Murray, Albemarable
Street, 1899.
Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity. A Study of the Patriarchate
of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War
of Independence. © Cambridge University Press 1968.
Lord Eversley. The Turkish Empire, Its Growth and Decay. London,
T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., Adelph Terrace, 1918.
Inalcik, Halil. The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age 1300-1600.
Translated by Norman Itzkowitz and Colin Imber. Praeger Publishers. New
York, Washington.
Dr. Atasoy, Nurhan. Splendors of the Ottoman Sultans. Edited and
Translated by Dr. Tulay Artan. Istanbul University. Presented by WONDERS,
The Memphis International Cultural Series, a division of the City of Memphis,
Tennessee and the Directorate General of Monuments and Museums of the Ministry
of the Republic of Turkey. 1992.
Kinder, Hermann and Hilgemann Werner. The Penguin Atlas of World History.
Volume 1: From the Beginning to the Eve of the French Revolution.
Translated by Ernest A. Menze with maps designed by Harald and Ruth Bukor.
Penguin Reference Books, 1974.
visitors since August 1996