553 years ago... [Archive]

NodachiSam

05-30-2006, 18:56

:embarassed:
Sorry, what I was saying was: If Christian-orthodox Byzantine Empire/Constantinople would not have been conquered by the Islamic Ottomans, there would not be so much fuzz in Europe about cultural/religious circumstances in Turkey, which make it hard for Turkey to become a member of the European Union.

Anyway...that was an interesting time period. The rise of the Ottomans and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Yes this might easily have something to do with it. It really is a very tragic rememberance.

I read (maybe propoganda, but I find it reasonable seeing the time period) that when he Turks took the city, the heads of children were used to snuff out candles in the Hagia Sophia. Sixty-thousand people were sold into slavery though.

553 is a long time ago but not so much when you consider how long the Roman political tradition existed. 510 BCE (when the Romans rebelled against Etrusca and effectively became a republic) to 1453 CE (the fall of Constantinople) =1963 years! If only they had lasted 5 more centuries about 15 generations...:no:

Byzantine Prince

05-30-2006, 19:12

Let us comemorate this moment, as it is definitely a turning point in world history. :book:
Really? I would think MAnzikert is a more important event. Most of the Byzantine Empire had already fallen by the time Mehmed blasted the City. There were also threats from the north and internal strife, there is no way it would have lasted. The only thing I feel bad about is that all the pretty gold got stolen. My gold! :laugh4:

Prince Cobra

05-31-2006, 07:23

Really? I would think MAnzikert is a more important event. Most of the Byzantine Empire had already fallen by the time Mehmed blasted the City. There were also threats from the north and internal strife, there is no way it would have lasted. The only thing I feel bad about is that all the pretty gold got stolen. My gold! :laugh4:
Not exactly. If we call the Turkish threat illness that killed Byzantium and the falling of Constantinople the death its the same with the person we mourn him on the date of his death not on the day he get ill. And I've read somewhere that although byz lost most of Minor Asia Byzantium still had chances to survive later. But its chances were wasted by Manuel I Comnenus (who wasted the power of the empire on battles in the West) first and Michael VIII later (who destroyed the akritoi).Anyway the battle of Manzikert(19th of August 1071) still is a turning point in the Byzantine history.
Other important events:
17th of September 1176- battle of Myriokephalon
13th of April 1204- the knights of the 4th Crusade conquered Constantinopol
25th of June 1261- Constantinopol is reconquered by Michael VIII

edyzmedieval

05-31-2006, 12:39

Prince Cobra

05-31-2006, 13:06

Manzikert was just the start, but an intelligent emperor(like Basil II) could have recovered from this blow. Manuel I was a total idiot, as the basically destroyed the army to reconquer territories, and Michael VIII was the same. He neglected the Akritoi(border guards) and the defensive system of the country. :shame:

Also, the siege in 1204 and internal strife were also very important factors. :wall:
Well not exactly... Manuel I dreamed to be a great emperor- a second Justianian and to put the Mediterranean under his power (he tried to conquer Sicily and South Italy and even Egypt). He was too selfconfident because he was a romaioi a descendant of the Great Roman empire and he thought the power is in the blood of his people. Otherwise he had some good virtues good diplomat and a capable emperor. But he considered the Turks to be an easy rival (in the first years of his reign he defeated them several times). And he was wrong.
Michael VIII was a perfect diplomat (saved the empire from its dangerous enemy Charles (Karlo) D'Anju in Italy) launched some succesful campaigns in the Balkan peninsula. But he underestimated the Turks too. They looked like savage barbarians (a remnants from an empire) who would not do anything dangerous for the empire. This fact explains why Andronicus II even let the Turks live on the border byz territorries- like acritoi :no: :no: :no:. MISTAKE. :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:
These emperors all underestimated the Turks. They should have better tutors and advisers!
P.S. That's why in my byz campaignes the Turks are my main enemies (only in my games!). Nothing personal. But Minor Asia is too small for two empires!

edyzmedieval

05-31-2006, 15:43

Many of the Emperors indeed underestimated the power of the nomad Turks, just as Bayazid underestimated Timur Lenk at Ankara in 1402. :skull:

And they paid for it. :shame:

matteus the inbred

05-31-2006, 16:17

So it is. A momentous and tragic event, I've always felt, especially the last actions of Constatine XI.
Coincidentally, I was in Westminster Abbey yesterday, and in the North Transept lies a memorial stone (if I remember rightly. I'll check this evening) to Theodorus Palaeologus, thought to be the last direct male descendent of that line of Emperors, who died in 1644.

Addendum
The direct quote from the book I was reading (Westminster Abbey, by R. Jenkyns)
is 'Those inclined to romantic fantasy may toy with the notion that the Abbey also contains a rightful Emperor of Byzantium, the heir of Augustus and Constantine...a floor slab in the north transept records 'Theodorus Palaeologus 1644'. He was the eldest son of another Theodore Paleologus, buried in a Cornish village, where his tomb sets out his descent from "the last Christian Emperor of Greece".'

NodachiSam

05-31-2006, 18:09

"So it is. A momentous and tragic event, I've always felt, especially the last actions of Constatine XI.
Coincidentally, I was in Westminster Abbey yesterday, and in the North Transept lies a memorial stone (if I remember rightly. I'll check this evening) to Theodorus Palaeologus, thought to be the last direct male descendent of that line of Emperors, who died in 1644."
It totally is. Being the last descendant like that is tragic in a romantic kind of way. That reminds me of this old man in China who is the lastest descendant of the last Chinese emperor, living on a farm or something.

edyzmedieval

06-01-2006, 13:00

The last guy dies in 1644. Wow..... With no heirs... :shame:

matteus the inbred

06-01-2006, 13:40

The last guy dies in 1644. Wow..... With no heirs... :shame:

Actually, there is a slightly brighter side; it is thought in fact that the maze of descents of the Palaeologus family through the female line resulted in the Habsburg-Lorraine Emperors of Austria who were deposed in 1918, just 4 years before the deposition and exile of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (and descendent of Constantinople's conqueror Mehmed II), Mehmed VI.
However, European royal genealogy is an extremely complicated and frankly interbred thing, it's not like it was a very direct descent or anything!

If there's one thing royals do well, it's marry off all over the place...

edyzmedieval

06-02-2006, 17:20

So basically, the Habsburg Lorraine family is of Byzantine descent... :dizzy2:

matteus the inbred

06-02-2006, 17:41

So basically, the Habsburg Lorraine family is of Byzantine descent... :dizzy2:

Yeah, but only distantly. A younger son of Andronicus II was heir to his mother's estate of Montferrat, and this line survived through a couple of successions to become the dukes of Lorraine...I expect the Habsburg-Lorraine family is mainly of central european descent really. Their origins are Swiss, from Swabia, and Austrian. I liked the motto of one emperor -
Austriae est imperare orbi universo
("Austria will rule the whole world")

Keba

06-02-2006, 19:08

So basically, the Habsburg Lorraine family is of Byzantine descent... :dizzy2:

So were some Russian Tzars ... it is for that reason that Russia has a two-headed eagle as it's coat of arms ... the daugher of the last Roman Emperor was married to the Russian Emperor of the time ... which led to Moscow being called the 'Third Rome', and his adoption of the Byzantine symbol as his own.

NodachiSam

06-05-2006, 19:13

So were some Russian Tzars ... it is for that reason that Russia has a two-headed eagle as it's coat of arms ... the daugher of the last Roman Emperor was married to the Russian Emperor of the time ... which led to Moscow being called the 'Third Rome', and his adoption of the Byzantine symbol as his own.

Wow its not a truely Roman but still very cool. I bet there are still decendants of the Tzars in Russia too.

Justiciar

06-05-2006, 20:48

Nah they're all hiding here in Britain. Silly sods.

*beats away exiled foreign monarchs with a broom*

edyzmedieval

06-05-2006, 21:28

Nah they're all hiding here in Britain. Silly sods.

*beats away exiled foreign monarchs with a broom*

Uck, eh? ~D

I hope the broom is clean and it's a Nimbus 2000. :skull:

Mithradates

06-05-2006, 21:37

Keba

06-05-2006, 21:54

The Byzantines truely were a tragic people. I always wonder what may have happened if they hadn't had soo many internal power struggles which seemed to constantly cripple them. Im not sure but i remember reading something which made it sound like in one fifty year period there was something of the number of 16 claims to the throne.

Actually, the book I'm currently reading has two full-fledged civil wars, a devastating earthquake, and the outbreak of the bubonic plague in the same 50-year period. Talk about having bad luck.

yesdachi

06-07-2006, 15:26

Anyone know the approximate city population at the time of the fall?

matteus the inbred

06-07-2006, 15:39

Anyone know the approximate city population at the time of the fall?

Anything between 50,000-100,000, depending on the sources. Which was not all that many really, given the size. The population had been in decline for years after the Fourth Crusade and various plagues. London at the same time probably had 70-80,000. I have a source at home which I shall check this evening. Possibly half the population were killed or enslaved during the sack.

The Fall of Big C has always reminded me of Minas Tirith in LotR, the tail-end of a great empire, the half-empty city full of ancient buildings and wonders, the hordes at the gate...wonder if Tolkien made it a conscious parallel?

Mithradates

06-07-2006, 20:04

What i dont quite understand is, i was reading a book that said during the last days of the siege the likely number of christian defenders was around 4000. Why couldnt they levy some of that large population? Or maybe the book itslef was reffering to the number of proffesional soldiers guarding the city.

matteus the inbred

06-08-2006, 10:10

Finally checked my sources...the population was at least 50,000, probably closer to 60,000, but mostly merchants, academics, and impoverished former landowners and the like. Not very 'trainable', I suspect. They had about 5,000 Greek troops and a couple of thousand European mercenaries including an Italian siege expert, but by the last few days of the siege this must have dropped considerably, so 4,000 professional soldiers might be right. I expect the civilian population helped where it could, but the Turks were sending in Janissaries and the like, so civilians would not have been much use.

edyzmedieval

06-08-2006, 10:45

matteus the inbred

06-08-2006, 10:49

They REFUSED to help. They didn't agree with the Emperor because of the unification with the Catholic Church.

Anyhow, the number of Greeks was about 4000 men and some 4000 mercenaries also to defend the city. Mehmed II had about 80.000 men to attack the city. :skull:

Ah, that's right...bit silly of them really. The Emperor had tried to strike a desperate deal with the Catholic church in return for aid...

yesdachi

06-09-2006, 04:19

Thanks for the numbers!

Very interesting situation, far more complex than it appears.

Patriarch of Constantinople

06-11-2006, 00:58

...the great Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and later, Byzantine Empire, was conquered by the Ottoman Turks, under the rule of Mehmed II the Conqueror(Fatih). :shame:

Let us comemorate this moment, as it is definitely a turning point in world history. :book:

Tuesday is when it happened and in Greece tuesday is an unlucky day

Idomeneas

06-11-2006, 02:08

actually what friday the 13th is for europeans Tuesday the 13th is for Greeks cause it was Tuesday when the City fell and 1+4+5+3=13
also many interesting myths followed the fall such as the ''stoned king'' according to it an angel took Constantine from battlefield when all was lost hiden him in a cave and turned him to stone with the promise to bring him to life the day that City will be regained. Somekind of Arthurian style legend.

Very interesting is the refference where the emperor fighting in a horde of Turks seeing everything lost cried out ''Isnt here any Christian to take my head?''. I believe one of the most lyric lines ever.
The byzantine emperors did many mistakes in the last centuries of the empire that costed dearly. Constantine's actions i thing are the best way to try right those wrongs. He cant do much. he cant do anything basically except keping a stance that reflects something of the heroic homeric/classical age. His writen response to the Sultan is not the one of a despote/emperor but closer to the ancient greek spirit that Leonidas symbolised. And his death in the battle instead of leaving like thief and abandon his people rightly puts him in the heroic pantheon.

Patriarch of Constantinople

06-11-2006, 02:53

he was brave ill give him that. Charged straight into the breach

The Wizard

06-11-2006, 13:14

The fall was nothing but the dying breath of a decrepit old empire. In this dying breath, however, the Eastern Romans showed some of the flair, tenacity and doggedness with which they had carved out their spot in history.

Yet it was inevitable. If not in 1453 it would have happened a few years later; it could have happened in 1405 had Timur not come along to cut a few Ottoman and Serbian heads.

It was a fitting end. The Byzantines refused to bow down to the Europeans and put aside their beliefs and ancient practices for prosperity, and kept true to their principles to the very end. The fall is that last ironic flash of Roman virtue after so long a darkness.

IrishArmenian

06-12-2006, 01:12

And since then, the Armenians were considered as loyal as Christians could be by the Ottomans... That is until the young Turks, but that is a lesson for a different day.

edyzmedieval

06-12-2006, 07:03

Actually, the legend is the called "The Marble Emperor". The angel took him in a cave, and there he turned into marble until Constantinople is back on track. Myths, myths and myths.... :book:

matteus the inbred

06-12-2006, 10:08

Actually, the legend is the called "The Marble Emperor". The angel took him in a cave, and there he turned into marble until Constantinople is back on track. Myths, myths and myths....

IIRC, the Armenians themselves have a similar legend about their last king from the line of the House of Sassoun, one Meher, who as punishment for wounding his own father in a duel was made to spend eternity in a cave near Lake Van, and would only be allowed out again when the earth is freed of all sin...part of a fascinating set of semi-legendary stories about Armenian kings called the Saga of Sassoun. So I wonder if this is where that story comes from...?

edyzmedieval

06-12-2006, 11:30

Th3 same with the Santa Sophia legend. It's said that all of the people who were inside the cathedral when the Turks entered, they became "encased" into the altar, and they shall return when the cathedral is Christian again.

:inquisitive:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-12-2006, 15:40

Almost every people have a story of a legendary king who will return to save/lead his people in their hour of need. Arthur is just the most famour one, mainly because Hollywood got hold of him.

The Final fall of Constantinople was a very sad day and it alway makes me emotional.

edyzmedieval

06-13-2006, 09:42

I wanna spend 29th of May 2008 in Istanbul, because it will be 555 years....

kataphraktoi

06-13-2006, 16:56

For a CHinese like me, the fall of Constantinople is an emotional event for me too.

Beautiful Byzantium, Beautiful Byzantium. Queen of Cities.

Could you imagine how glorious Sancta Sophia would be if it was given to the custodianship of the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, after all, it is a museum today and not a mosque. Only bigoted and unprogressive Muslims would oppose transfer of a former church to its original use, a church. Imagine the ceiling of the dome restored to its lustrous wonder. Imagine a huge jewelled cross hanging in the air across the roof? And of course, a huge iconostasis!

It would be a great endorsement of Turkey's democracy and image around the world and serve as a big tick towards moderate Islam.

Greeks are told to forget the past, but how can anyone forget the Sancta Sophia?

Kralizec

06-13-2006, 19:51

Agreed, it would speak well of Turkey if they returned the Hagia Sophia to the church.

spmetla

06-14-2006, 09:22

Anything between 50,000-100,000, depending on the sources. Which was not all that many really, given the size. The population had been in decline for years after the Fourth Crusade and various plagues. London at the same time probably had 70-80,000. I have a source at home which I shall check this evening. Possibly half the population were killed or enslaved during the sack.

The Fall of Big C has always reminded me of Minas Tirith in LotR, the tail-end of a great empire, the half-empty city full of ancient buildings and wonders, the hordes at the gate...wonder if Tolkien made it a conscious parallel?

I'm pretty sure he was making a parallel. One empire split into two Arnor and Gondor, Arnor falls and becomes independent kingdoms fighting each other. Gonder controls Harad. Harad almost conqueres Gondor but is beaten by the cavalry charge of the Rohorrin.

Would be cool to have St. Sophia turned into a church again.

Prince Cobra

06-15-2006, 14:17

About Tolkien: It's possible. I remember the third film of the Lord of the Rings and especially how Gandalf defended Minas Tirit. Sixty years before falling of Constantonople a Bulgarian patriarch called Evtimius defended the Bulgarian capital Tzarevgrad Tyrnov ( or the city of the tzars Tyrnovo) when his master, tzar Ivan Shishman, left the city before the siege. (But the tzar was not weak he was just trying to negotiate with Hungarians.). Now Evtimius is something like a national hero and a symbol of the resistance of Bulgarian state against the Ottoman Turks. And the interesting fact is Bulgaria at that time was separated into two countries ruled by tzars and one ruled by despot.

edyz, I'm not quite sure the citizens of Constantinople were passive. As far as I know even the women and the monks ( orthodox monks) helped to the defenders. Just the Greek population was not enough ( I think 50 000 were the population in earlier period (second part of XIVth century) ). And a significant part of the citizens were non-Greeks.

Ooops, I doubled my post. Not good

Prince Cobra

06-15-2006, 14:19

edyzmedieval

06-15-2006, 22:39

Double post. :grin:

Most of them helped, but many refused. Also, the Genoese sold themselves to the Turks, and much needed help was refused.

spmetla

06-16-2006, 10:23

Prince Cobra

06-16-2006, 12:13

I'm pretty sure the civilians were used like in most sieges to bring water food and supplies to the defenders and help to repair the holes in the wall created by Urbans cannon.

It is a good mark for the end of the medieval period. The last ties to the classical world were severed with the end of the 'Roman Empire'. I believe the Empire of Trebizond remained independent from the Ottoman Turks for a few years after the fall of Constantinople and claimed the title of the 'Roman Empire'.

Well if it hadn't fallen the Italians would have kept up their black sea trade and probably not have felt the need to go west, Europe's discovery of the Americas might have been delayed a few years if Constantinople hadn't fallen.
I have an interesting idea about this 'if' scenario. If Byzantium hadn't fallen at all. That means that byz would have never lost Minor Asia ( or at least that part of it depicted in MTW as 'Nicaea'). Then maybe byz society would have succeeded in creating its own bourgeois which with more help of the government can become a rivals on the powerful but separated Genoa and Venice ( who later were attacked by the new powers of Habsburgs and France for domination in Italy). So maybe the Italian hegemony will not last forever. And of course Trabzon would have been conquered back to byzantium. But this is another topic... And according to my secret plan this scenario (as a background however) will be used by me in my story 'Byzantine intrigues'( first half of XIVth century)which should have appeared in the Mead hall by the end of the year. All rights reserved :2thumbsup: .
Be free to comment ( but I hope we will not go off the topic).

Perplexed

06-17-2006, 06:19

In many ways, it was a good thing that the Ottomans finally took the city, for although Constantinople was the last remnant of the great Roman Empire, it was nothing more than that, a mere shred of the glory it had once possessed. For centuries before the city fell to Mehmed's cannons, the city was already about as dead as something can get. Years of abuse by Crusaders and other barbarians had made sure Byzantium could never rise again. But the Ottomans restored the city to at least some of its former glory. At least Constantinople was now stable under the rule of the formidable Ottoman Empire. Who knows what might have happened to the city if the city hadn't been conquered, but the truth is, it was, and it's still one of the greatest cities on the face of the Earth, even after 1.7 millennia.

I hope this doesn't cause any outrage, it's just my opinion.

The Wizard

06-17-2006, 21:09

Perplexed

06-17-2006, 22:51

You are correct. The Ottomans took the decaying old city, sacked by Crusaders and grown delapitated under the Palaeologids, and gave it a new shine, a new life, a new population. Istanbul as it is now is a beautiful, thriving, cosmopolitan city, a testimony to the vibrancy that the Ottoman conquest gave the city.

For a second there I thought I might get swamped by enraged Byzantine revivalists (if there is such a thing). At least I'm not alone in my views.

I believe the Empire of Trebizond remained independent from the Ottoman Turks for a few years after the fall of Constantinople and claimed the title of the 'Roman Empire'.

Also, the name "Rum" (as in the MTW province) indicated "Rome", didn't it? The Rum Sultanate must have fancied itself the empire's true successor, like so many other little states.

edyzmedieval

06-17-2006, 22:55

Perplexed

06-17-2006, 23:08

Yeah, but many parts of the city look like ****. :shame:

You'll find nasty places in all the large cities you ever visit.

The Wizard

06-18-2006, 02:08

Yeah, but many parts of the city look like ****. :shame:

Those are parts that Constantinople could only ever dream of expanding into (okay, so they didn't because of strategical considerations, but that doesn't matter right now).

Mostly I think Istanbul is much more a city than many in Europe. It ranks amongst my favorite in the world, and I've visited many of the greats.

King Henry V

06-18-2006, 02:08

I'm pretty sure the civilians were used like in most sieges to bring water food and supplies to the defenders and help to repair the holes in the wall created by Urbans cannon.

It is a good mark for the end of the medieval period. The last ties to the classical world were severed with the end of the 'Roman Empire'. I believe the Empire of Trebizond remained independent from the Ottoman Turks for a few years after the fall of Constantinople and claimed the title of the 'Roman Empire'.

Well if it hadn't fallen the Italians would have kept up their black sea trade and probably not have felt the need to go west, Europe's discovery of the Americas might have been delayed a few years if Constantinople hadn't fallen.
The Italians didn't go west, and the exploration of the Americas was because Europe wanted to find an alternative route to China and India, so as to break the Italian monopoly on silk and spices.

Also, the name "Rum" (as in the MTW province) indicated "Rome", didn't it? The Rum Sultanate must have fancied itself the empire's true successor, like so many other little states.
Rum I believe did come from Rome, but that was because it referred to the conquest of the formerly "Roman" territories in Asia, besides it was named thus before the sack in 1204, thus it could not be considered a succesor state.

Perplexed

06-18-2006, 05:00

Rum I believe did come from Rome, but that was because it referred to the conquest of the formerly "Roman" territories in Asia, besides it was named thus before the sack in 1204, thus it could not be considered a succesor state.

Yeah, I was reading up on it and you would seem to be right.

The Italians didn't go west, and the exploration of the Americas was because Europe wanted to find an alternative route to China and India, so as to break the Italian monopoly on silk and spices.

Indeed, it was allegedly a great disappointment for Europe to find a continent blocking the path to Cathay.

spmetla

06-19-2006, 09:52

The Italian city states themselves never sent any expeditions west but many of their sailors and captains went west. Columbus was certainly not the only Italian trying his luck as a sailor/explorer for hire.

As you pointed out the Italians were more than happy to keep selling all the "eastern" goods form the Egyptian markets but that obviously didn't stop others from trying their luck elsewhere.

The Byzantine Empire was still a power before 1204. They still commanded respect in the region and had the potential to recover as they had a century before. The Crusader sack of Constantinople and the break up and plundering of the Empire was more harmful to the region and more beneficial to the Turks than any of the battles the Turks had won since Manzikurt.
And yes it was definately best for the city to be absorbed into the Ottoman Empire.

kataphraktoi

06-21-2006, 11:30

Ottomans did revive decaying areas because they stopped damaging regions and places they harassed and attacked beforehand.

Eg. Anatolia's population growth was due to its unifications under the Ottomans...after the Ottomans stopped ravaging the region.

The Wizard

06-21-2006, 17:34

And ...?

ajaxfetish

06-22-2006, 01:01

Here's joining you in a moment of silence, Edyz. :shame:

Ajax

kataphraktoi

06-22-2006, 15:37

kataphraktoi

06-22-2006, 15:38

Perplexed

06-22-2006, 18:56

Constantiinople would have recovered if given the chance like it did in the 9th century.

And how can you be so sure of that? Constantinople was already surrounded by Ottoman territory, without any allies. There was no way it could have recovered unless it was by miraculously defeating the Ottoman armies in the field, or again begging for European aid (and we know how successful that would be, even if help did come). The city was lost already, there was no hope of recovery. It was only the admirable stubbornness of the defenders that prolonged the inevitable in the end.

Archayon

06-22-2006, 19:40

And how can you be so sure of that? Constantinople was already surrounded by Ottoman territory, without any allies. There was no way it could have recovered unless it by miraculously defeating the Ottoman armies in the field, or again begging for European aid (and we know how successful that would be, even if help did come). The city was lost already, there was no hope of recovery. It was only the admirable stubbornness of the defenders that prolonged the inevitable in the end.

not only the begging for European aid

Johannes VI (or was it his successor, Joannes V?) tried it, and also tried another option:
a Balkan-coalition.

The Bulgars agreed, the Serbs too. Only the Russian didn't want to take part in it. The coalition failed, and was beaten several times... (if i remember well, the did win a battle, taking the Turkish sultan captured and murdered him, making the Byzantine suffering last longer for more than a century).
I wonder if the the coalition would succeed if the Russian did take part in it:inquisitive:

(but i doubt)

:idea2: Arch

Perplexed

06-22-2006, 20:44

not only the begging for European aid

Johannes VI (or was it his successor, Joannes V?) tried it, and also tried another option:
a Balkan-coalition.

The Bulgars agreed, the Serbs too. Only the Russian didn't want to take part in it. The coalition failed, and was beaten several times... (if i remember well, the did win a battle, taking the Turkish sultan captured and murdered him, making the Byzantine suffering last longer for more than a century).
I wonder if the the coalition would succeed if the Russian did take part in it:inquisitive:

(but i doubt)

:idea2: Arch

Yes, that was the Battle of Kosovo, where Sultan Murad I was killed by the Serbs and their allies. However, even though the Sultan died, Kosovo was a great Ottoman victory, and the Balkan coalition was crushed. Also, the dead Murad was succeeded by Bayezid I, who was even more successful in his conquests, so Constantinople was just as doomed.

ChewieTobbacca

06-23-2006, 01:31

It is amazing that the walls of Constantinople were breached only 3 times - once by the treachery of the Fourth Crusade, later by the reconquering of Constantinople, and finally in 1453 by Mehmed II.

Constnatinople by this time was but a shade of its former glory - the city was really a bunch of villages surrounded by the great walls. It was in decay and decline with no help from the internal strife and the bubonic plague which had severely depopulated the city.

The fall of Constantinople occurs in the same year the Hundred Years War ends - and it is one of the events many consider the end of the Middle Ages (along with cultural/religious change as well as the discovery of the new world). It truly created massive changes in world affairs:
First, it ushered in the era of the cannon for good - even the mightiest cities and once impregnable walls were no longer a match for cannons. It, symbolic if anything, signaled the final end of the old fuedal order and the ability for great castles/fortifications to rule over land.

Second, it ushered in the new order - the Ottoman Turks were a power to be reckoned with and would not be stopped in Europe until the Battle of Vienna 200 years later and would not fall until after WWI.

Third, it ended the last link to Classical Antiquity with the final fall of the Roman Empire (though as others have pointed out, Russia claimed to be the Third Rome, and Mehemd II himself took the title Kayser-i-Rum (Caesar of Rome).

It also shifted power in Europe to the west that lasts to this day - no longer did the Orthodox church have its old power nor did the Eastern nations control the same strategic land.

Finally, it drove up prices of goods from the East and spurred the search for new trade routes to the East. With the discovery of the new world, the power of Western Europe would bring them to the top of civilization until the wars of the 20th century.

As for the LOTR references - though he claimed his stories weren't allegorical, they had many parallels and Minas Tirith has often been considered to be symbolic of Constantinople.

kataphraktoi

06-24-2006, 03:29

Perplexed, I said if given a "chance"....

Obviously, they didn't have much of a chance did they? sheesh........

The Wizard

06-24-2006, 15:42

And....so that means that its not due to any Ottoman benevolence for the revival of several regions that were heavily devastated. Constantiinople would have recovered if given the chance like it did in the 9th century. Some fool will inevitably embark on some propaganda in portraying the Ottomans as some kind of benevolent regime.

Under the delapitated Roman regime? Come now. No, the only good chance for the City would have been to have passed under the benevolence of Ottoman rule, as opposed to the harshness of Catholic hate for the 'schismatic' Orthodox.

And this is exactly what happened. Greeks formed a very important part of the Ottoman administration for a very long time, and it is most apparent that in the absence of domestic power, the Sultan's turban was indeed a lot better than the Cardinal's mitre.

Reenk Roink

06-24-2006, 16:52

Perplexed, I said if given a "chance"....

Obviously, they didn't have much of a chance did they? sheesh........

Um, if you put it that way, anything could happen if given a "chance"...

Fact is, the Eastern Roman Empire never had one; the fall of Constantinople was inevitable in retrospect...

Also, the Ottomans were probably the most 'benevolent' of all of Constantinople's enemies. Would the Orthodox Church be tolerated better by a Catholic conqueror? Nope.

And though the fall may be considered a day of mourning for some, it marked the rise of one of the most powerful, complex, and interesting (not to mention 'benevolent' when compared with their neighbors) empires...

Perplexed

06-25-2006, 00:14

Perplexed, I said if given a "chance"....

Obviously, they didn't have much of a chance did they? sheesh........

No, they didn't.

kataphraktoi

06-25-2006, 15:26

Reenk Roink

06-25-2006, 17:14

Pffft this benevolence is due to the Ottomans trying to foster hatred between Orthodox and Catholic Christians that existed beforehand. When the Ottomans restored the Orthodox Patriarchate, they made sure they choose an anti-unionist who had earlier opposed the fragile ecclesiastical union in place earlier.

I'm pretty sure the 'benevolence' is more due on the fact that Islam acted as a neutral system in a superior position to the differing sects of Christianity; like a secular system today...

I'm so sick of this "benevolent" argument about the Ottoman Empire, fact is, it is still an empire like all others.

And yet it was you who first bought Ottoman 'benevolence' up. I reread the thread, and could find no instance of someone bringing Ottoman 'benevolence' until you wrote: "Some fool will inevitably embark on some propaganda in portraying the Ottomans as some kind of benevolent regime."

The arguments for them are the same as that of a colonial empire justifying their "benevolent" rule as well.

Yes. Also remember that some colonial empires were more 'benevolent' than others. The Ottomans, when compared to their contemporaries, were easily more 'benevolent'. If you would compare them to a modern nation, of course they would come up short. If you even compare them to their Arab predecessors, they would come up short. But if you compare them to their contemporaries, are they second to none...

Were the Ottomans as benevolent?

See above.

What are devirsme?

A very questionable system yes, though it can't be seen as all black and white. These slaves were received the best education, best training, and highest positions in the government. It is telling that Muslim women tried to pose as Christians themselves...

What about discouraging ethnic identity and subsuming it under religion under the millet system?

This is the paradigm on which Islam is built. Race and ethnicity take a backseat to religion. This is also how most people in Europe thought until the beginning on nationalism and the modern age. People would identify themselves with their religion rather than their nation.

Also, seeing as how the millet system allowed minorities to somewhat function autonomously under their own law, that would be considered quite 'benevolent' in comparison to their contemporaries.

And the codified fraticide of the Ottoman Turks?

I fail to see how internal struggles of succession and power play into 'benevolence'.

Sure, u could say to me what about the Jews who found refuge in the Ottoman Empire when expelled from Spain? Wow! They must be so benevolent from the deepest depths of their hearts!! I certainly would invite Jews too because of their commercial acumen and their tendency to study highly prized skills in medicine and such.

Pointing this out merely strengthens the already solid argument that the Ottomans were more 'benevolent' than their contemporaries. I certainly don't doubt that the Ottomans saw benefit for their own empire by inviting the Jews in, much like the Christian nations saw benefit from having Jews in their borders for money lending. But the Ottomans surely were less jealous of the Jews success than the other European nations, as seen by the many expulsions whenever the general feeling was that the Jews became too powerful and rich. Even Voltaire, who delights pointing out religious intolerance, either is not very self-aware or just a hypocrite in his description of the Jew in Candide.

Mind you, I don't hate Ottomans. I just like the assumption that Ottomans were nice...even if taken in a relative sense.

If taken in the relative sense, it's clearly apparent that the Ottomans were more benevolent than their contemporaries...

The Wizard

06-25-2006, 18:28

I second the words of Reenk Roink, and wish to add a couple of points.

On the sephardim: if they were so beneificial -- then why did the Spanish and Portuguese force them to assimilate, or alternatively kill them or exile them? You see, regardless of the fact that their coming did benefit the Ottomans themselves -- they were allowed to come and maintain their own ways, and they thrived. Spanish is still the language of Bulgarian Jews, for instance. This is the defining difference between a deeply Catholic state, like Spain, and a (deeply) Muslim state like the Ottoman one: the very existence of tolerance benefited the state more than trying to destroy minorities.

And on the devshirme: please. This system was an evolved and consequently more institutionalized form of the mamluk system of past ages in Muslim states. The system was so beneficial to oneself, and the slavery system so much more 'enlightened' (as far as that term is applicable upon slavery) than the European form, that thousands of Oghuz Turks, Circassians and whatnot else voluntarily gave themselves up to become a slave warrior and get an attempt to better one's lot in society. Later one could easily buy himself free and pursue a much better life than he could ever have hoped for in, for instance, Central Asia as a simple tribesman.

The same went for the devshirme. It was cruel, yes -- to the family. To the one taken it meant an extreme rise in the semi-feudal status society that was the Ottoman Empire.

Watchman

06-25-2006, 21:51

I've read sometimes Muslim peasant families would arrange it with their Christian neighbours (and bribe the appropriate officials if need be) to have their sons taken in under the devshirme. Recall that many aspects of the Islamic version of slavery were quite "benevolent" - although that obviously doesn't go for the poor saps sent to the mines and galleys, but then that was the norm everywhere and had little to do with the devshirme which was for the recruitement of adminstrators and elite soldiers.

Prince Cobra

06-26-2006, 12:05

I think it is high time to say some words...
The Ottoman tolerance to the Christians should not be exaggerated at all. XVIth century is the period of the religious colisions. In Western Europe the Reformation, which was the result of the religious and the social problems of the society, increased the hatred between different religous groups. That's why in the Western Europe occured terrible events that had not happened after so called Dark ages. Yes, the Europeans were suffuring from civil and religious wars... Yes, unlike some (not all) Christian countries the Ottomans did not massacred the different one like Chrstians. Why? First because they needed money for the wars and second massacring the Christians would let to many problems- Balkan peninsula and parts of Minor Asia were Christian. However the word ' benevolence' is absolutely out of place here. The 'tolerance' of the sultan ended with sparing the life of his lucrative raia ( or 'flock' just like flock of sheeps). But Bulgarian Rhodopes ( a mountain in Bulgaria) still remember how 'merciful' was the sultan. In the beginning of XVI th century and in 1645 Bulgarians there were forced to choose between the death and Islam. Is this a benevolence? And the trace of this is left forever- nowadays in the Rhodopes there are many Bulgarian Muslims ( ethnic Bulgarians) who are part of the Bulgarian nation. Nothing bad they are Muslims but it's important how they were converted to the religion with the scimitar. Adn we, the Bulgarians , will never forget the horror of 1876 when hundreds of Bulgarian families were killed. More for the Ottoman 'tolerance'... In 1513 40 000 shiites were massacred just because they were shiites ( paralel with Western Europe). Is this a tolerance? And lt's do not talk about the genocide of the Greeks and Armenians ( Don't forget about the Armenians )... Is this a tolerance? No Ottoman government was not benevolent. The topic should not be discussed. It is not historical accurate. The Ottomans were not the fanatics ready to kill any infidel but they were not 'benevolent'. For the sake of the souls of these who died because of the 'tolerance' of the sultan do not use that word. And it is for good the Ottoman empire no longer exists- the Turkish people who like any other nation deserved to be respected destroyed that anachronism, that shame.
Hope everything stays the past (although the turkish govrnment still has much work to do in order to improve the situation in Turkey ( economy, policy...)).
Back.. Yes, there were few individual cases of 'voluntary' converting but even then they were not so voluntary. Is it a volunary to choose the Islam to the famine ( you know your family will starve to death and if you are a muslim you will receive food as a benvolence of the masters). And what about the law? Christians there were totally disciminated!
About Janissaries... Yes, they were cruel but Ottomans paid for this. Jst like the ghulams and mamelukes ( other kind of slave-warriors) Janissaries want more power .Ask Ahmed III and Selim III... But this was really cruel- to have your own child as your enemy!
Back on the topic ( after all we talk about Constamtinople not how 'tolerant' ( :no: ) was the Ottoman empire). The conquest Constantinople has two sides, and both of them are right. As a Christian I think it is a tragedy- the Byzantines lost the city they founded. Many Christians were enslaved or killed. There were nothing between the Ottomans and Central Europe. And if constantinople was not conquered now it would be a Christian capital. But the Turks have their right- the history is not a charity company, the Ottomans were stronger and the city became their. And after all everybody would like to have this Great city, Miklagard, Constantinople, Tzarigrad, Istanbul... Anyway this is the history. There is no a universal truth.
But I think you all will agree in the fall of Constantinople there was something romantic because this was a glorious end of a great empire...

The Wizard

06-26-2006, 14:43

Forced conversions, eh? Hasn't that been disproved before? Although I myself at the moment lack the sources to be able to disprove it. I highly doubt, however, that a state relying on the millet tax would prefer to forcibly convert its Christian subjects.

History must not be discussed with any trace of hindsight. That is what I see in the posts decrying the Ottoman state as just as cruel -- if not more cruel -- than its contemporaries.

This is not the case. The Ottoman system rested on the relative isolation and lack of integration between the different cultural groups within their empire. It is this fact which elevates the Ottoman system above those, mostly Christian ones that preferred to assimilate and destroy the minorities living amongst them. For that time, for the time of the Ottoman Empire's existence, it was simply a better place to live than any of its main contenders. It does not matter if that was intended or not -- it is just a fact. That is all that matters.

Now, many of those claiming that the Ottoman empire was no better than its contemporaries (which in some cases is true) hail from the Balkans, and have thus come under the influence of the teaching that the taking away of independence of the Balkan peoples was an evil and thusly that the Ottoman advance was a bad thing. Fair enough.

Yet I ask you: what was the alternative? After the death of Dushan there was no Orthodox state left that could face off the Ottomans. Thusly there was but one alternative: other Christian states. Yet these were Catholic ones, and they despised the strange and 'schismatic' Orthodox faithful. What would they have done with Serbians, Bulgarians and Greeks? Left them to be -- or start a vicious campaign against 'heretics' and 'schismatics' to bring them 'back' into the fold of the 'one true Church'? If anything the Ottomans preserved the national and cultural identity of the Balkan peoples, more so than any Catholic state would have dared to ever do.

Reenk Roink

06-26-2006, 18:49

Of course one can find anecdotes upon anecdotes of atrocity by the Ottoman Empire.

Doing this completely disregards the long running practice of the Ottoman Empire's toleration of others.

Like it has been mentioned beforehand, comparing the Ottoman Empire to modern day Western nations is certainly going to be in the favor of the latter. Even comparing the Ottoman Empire to the previous Arab-Islamic empires is going to show that the Ottomans were less 'benevolent' than their predecessors (if the Ummayads were able to conquer Constantinople in 717, one could be certain that their would be minimal bloodshed of civilians as not only was it the norm of the early conquests of Islam to be magnanimous to the conquered civilian population, but also due to the fact that the Caliph at this time, Umar II was the most benevolent of the Ummayad dynasty).

But what still remains, is the fact that both in theory and in practice, the Ottomans had a much more tolerant and 'benevolent' regime than any of its contemporaries.

Once again, nobody in this thread started off claiming that the Ottomans were 'benevolent', but rather, charges against the Ottomans were made which were inaccurate and responded to.

Watchman

06-26-2006, 20:46

Although there were exceptions, Muslim realms in general tended to be highly tolerant of assorted minorities and religion-wise at least the "peoples of the book", namely Chrsitians and JJews of any persuasion. Which pretty much by default makes them pretty damn "benevolent" at least in comparision to just about all Christian realms, which could barely stomach Jews and usually not at all other versions of Christianity nevermind now Islam. Not that Shi'ites and Sunnis were on exactly good terms, mind you.

The exact (and often rather pragmatic) motivations behind this "benevolence" are fairly irrelevant. Particularly from the perspective of the subject minorities, who understandably tended to be pretty happy about being largely left to their own devices so long as they paid their dues and doubly so if they had fled into Ottoman or other Muslim territories from less tolerant regions.

Nqaturally enough the Ottomans were no less ruthless and brutal in war as any of their contemporaries - and upon occasion perhaps even more so, although just about anyone would be hard pressed to match the often seemingly wanton massacres of Tamerlane - but at least their armies tended to be disciplined and well supplied enough to only rape, loot and destroy on enemy territory...

Both the Ottomans and many of their subjects got bitten by the nationalism bug around the early 1800s which went a long way towards doing away with much of the tolerance pretty fast. The general torpid decreptitude of the Ottoman state by that point did not help one bit, as it left them incapable of little other reaction to such stirrings than violence and the moribundness of their military led them to delegate much of the actual fighting to local irregular forces with results sadly quite predictable from similarly brutal internecine conflicts of recent times.

As for the fall of Constantinopole, it was really just letting the practically extinct East Roman state out of its misery and ridding the Ottomans of a potentially troublesome internal frontier. By that point the Ottomans had been pretty well established on European soil for quite a while already (as well as launching campaigns of conquest deep into the Balkans), and what was left of Byzantium was Constantinopole with its immediate surroundings and the autonomous Despotate of Morea, which actually outlived Constantinopole by a few decades or so and can thus be considered the final lingering remnant of ancient Rome if one wants to be literal about it.

matteus the inbred

06-27-2006, 10:11

As for the fall of Constantinopole, it was really just letting the practically extinct East Roman state out of its misery and ridding the Ottomans of a potentially troublesome internal frontier. By that point the Ottomans had been pretty well established on European soil for quite a while already (as well as launching campaigns of conquest deep into the Balkans), and what was left of Byzantium was Constantinopole with its immediate surroundings and the autonomous Despotate of Morea, which actually outlived Constantinopole by a few decades or so and can thus be considered the final lingering remnant of ancient Rome if one wants to be literal about it

Despotate of the Morea fell in 1460. Amazingly, the central 'empire' based at Constantinople did send troops to help the Despotate sometimes, but not the other way around...I can't find any information on the 'last battle' or siege of this section of the once mighty Byzantine Empire though.

Prince Cobra

06-27-2006, 17:47

Let's do not go off the topic. There is a new thread ' the Ottoman empire and the Christians'. Let's move the irrelevant discussion there.

kataphraktoi

06-28-2006, 16:28

I'm pretty sure the 'benevolence' is more due on the fact that Islam acted as a neutral system in a superior position to the differing sects of Christianity; like a secular system today...

It was hardly neutral. They deliberated went out of their to place a high profile anti-unionist as a Patriarch. There is no secular system in the Ottoman Empire, you forget, Islam is the state and the church/mosque.

And yet it was you who first bought Ottoman 'benevolence' up. I reread the thread, and could find no instance of someone bringing Ottoman 'benevolence' until you wrote: "Some fool will inevitably embark on some propaganda in portraying the Ottomans as some kind of benevolent regime."

“Benevolence” is an expression of the sentiment of people‘s view of the Ottoman Empire. Just cause no one said “benevolence” doesn’t mean that it was not expressed as such.

Yes. Also remember that some colonial empires were more 'benevolent' than others. The Ottomans, when compared to their contemporaries, were easily more 'benevolent'. If you would compare them to a modern nation, of course they would come up short. If you even compare them to their Arab predecessors, they would come up short. But if you compare them to their contemporaries, are they second to none...

The Ottomans were in the same timeline as the French and British were they not? Were the Brits and French worse than the Ottomans? Of course, I understand what Anachronism is.

These slaves were received the best education, best training, and highest positions in the government. It is telling that Muslim women tried to pose as Christians themselves...

And that’s ok then? I suppose occupying someone’s country and giving them roads, an education system and technology makes it ok? Its a humiliation for the minorities, of course, Muslims have no qualms in trying to get their children enrolled as Janissaries, they don’t have to FACE the pain of losing their religion do they?

This is the paradigm on which Islam is built. Race and ethnicity take a backseat to religion. This is also how most people in Europe thought until the beginning on nationalism and the modern age. People would identify themselves with their religion rather than their nation.

Also, seeing as how the millet system allowed minorities to somewhat function autonomously under their own law, that would be considered quite 'benevolent' in comparison to their contemporaries.

It makes it easier to control and discriminate. The Patriarch of Istanbul was appointed over all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Is that good? No, not really because it made it easier to cripple the Orthodox Hierarchy which was centralised and under close supervision of the Sultans wasn’t it? Several Patriarchs were executed under the Sultans.

Pointing this out merely strengthens the already solid argument that the Ottomans were more 'benevolent' than their contemporaries. I certainly don't doubt that the Ottomans saw benefit for their own empire by inviting the Jews in, much like the Christian nations saw benefit from having Jews in their borders for money lending. But the Ottomans surely were less jealous of the Jews success than the other European nations, as seen by the many expulsions whenever the general feeling was that the Jews became too powerful and rich. Even Voltaire, who delights pointing out religious intolerance, either is not very self-aware or just a hypocrite in his description of the Jew in Candide.

It does not strengthen any argument. It illustrates pragmatism only. The Byzantines gave refuge to Khurramite and Banu Habib refugees persecuted by the Abbasids, does it means the Byzantines were benevolent? No…they were…pragmatic. It does not make them benevolent.

If taken in the relative sense, it's clearly apparent that the Ottomans were more benevolent than their contemporaries...

It is a superficial relativism. The margin is small. It is not significant.

Funny though, the foundations of human rights, equality, etc, etc were developed by colonialists contemporary with the “benevolent” Ottomans.

Reenk Roink

06-28-2006, 18:50

It was hardly neutral. They deliberated went out of their to place a high profile anti-unionist as a Patriarch. There is no secular system in the Ottoman Empire, you forget, Islam is the state and the church/mosque.

You also have misinterpreted my statement comparing how the Ottoman state was like a secular state. Of course Islam was the main law. It has superiority over the other religions. This is comparable to a secular system, which is superior over all religions. Islam is different and neutral to the differing strands of Christianity, Catholic rule would not be...

“Benevolence” is an expression of the sentiment of people‘s view of the Ottoman Empire. Just cause no one said “benevolence” doesn’t mean that it was not expressed as such.

Please bring examples...

Not the examples that the fall of Constantinople was better under the Ottomans, as they revived it mind you, that is another topic altogether.

The Ottomans were in the same timeline as the French and British were they not? Were the Brits and French worse than the Ottomans? Of course, I understand what Anachronism is.

Check the records of Colonial Britain and France...:wink:

Also remember that the Ottoman Empire had many reforms by the 19th century. It wasn't the same one that we see in the 15th century, which was still 'benevolent' when compared to the other nations of Europe...

And that’s ok then? I suppose occupying someone’s country and giving them roads, an education system and technology makes it ok? Its a humiliation for the minorities, of course, Muslims have no qualms in trying to get their children enrolled as Janissaries, they don’t have to FACE the pain of losing their religion do they?

I like how you selectively remove my initial statement and then try to make it seem as I somehow condoned it. Others have already compared the Ottoman slave system to other nations, please read their arguments, as I will not rehash them.

It makes it easier to control and discriminate. The Patriarch of Istanbul was appointed over all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Is that good? No, not really because it made it easier to cripple the Orthodox Hierarchy which was centralised and under close supervision of the Sultans wasn’t it? Several Patriarchs were executed under the Sultans.

As I’ve stated, the Islamic paradigm groups by religion, not by race or ethinicity. This would have played a role in it too. You choose to cast the worst possible light on the Ottoman Empire's motives; I choose a balanced point of view.

It does not strengthen any argument. It illustrates pragmatism only. The Byzantines gave refuge to Khurramite and Banu Habib refugees persecuted by the Abbasids, does it means the Byzantines were benevolent? No…they were…pragmatic. It does not make them benevolent.

Well, if you are adamant of portraying the Ottoman' Empire's motives behind their toleration of religious minorities as dark as possible, we cannot see eye to eye.

So according to your view, Christian nations' hatred of Jews outweighed their pragmatism?

You see, in these eyes, toleration of a reviled minority group in times when persecution was the status quo is unique. I consider it benevolent treatment. The Jews had a lot more to gain from their staying in Ottoman borders than the Ottomans...

It is a superficial relativism. The margin is small. It is not significant.

The margin is wider than you think...

There are few instances in medieval times of Christians conquering Muslim lands, but a common thread shared in these rare events is the massacre of Muslims.

There are many instances in the same time frame of Muslims conquering Christian lands. A frequently recurring theme is the toleration showed.

Funny though, the foundations of human rights, equality, etc, etc were developed by colonialists contemporary with the “benevolent” Ottomans.

It is amazing how we start off in 1453 and are now in the 19th century. Well then, those colonial powers that were just beginning to develop the foundations of human rights were certainly unaware that they must extend to the people that they colonized?

Kralizec

06-28-2006, 21:32

You also have misinterpreted my statement comparing how the Ottoman state was like a secular state. Of course Islam was the main law. It has superiority over the other religions. This is comparable to a secular system, which is superior over all religions. Islam is different and neutral to the differing strands of Christianity, Catholic rule would not be...

Poorly worded at best. A secular state is not a belief system, it's a framework that is neutral and tolerates no direct influence from clergy (indirect influence is possible via democracy, if present)

I haven't read all the posts here, but I haven't noticed anyone mentioning how different branches of Islam were treated. Am I correct in believing that the officially sanctioned version was Sunni Islam? How did they treat Shiites and other Islamic minorities?

Watchman

06-28-2006, 21:40

Probably not very well, although I doubt if they went out of their way to massacre everyone in the conquered regions during all those wars with Persia. It's somewhat curious how the major religions seem to always have had a far easier time tolerating each other than their own alternative readings...

Although, granted, after about a century of continuous bloodletting which eventually reached pretty awesome proportions in the Thirty Years' War the Catholics and Protestants largely stopped regarding grapeshot as a valid theological argument against each other (to quote Englund). Instead each concentrated on their own "internal" heretics. :dizzy2:

Kralizec

06-28-2006, 22:05

Well, there's a basis in the Sha'ria for that actually- apostacy is punishable by death. Not saying that this constitutes a correct interpretation, but some Islamist nutters (the late Al-Zarqawi, not Bin Laden though) think that believers who believe in the Quran, but not the correct interpretation have left the one true faith.

A (rather uneducated) theory I have is that the main historical reason for the animosity between Sunnis and Shiites stem from the fact that traditionally most Shiites were of Iranian (Persian, but also Kurdic) ethnicity, people with a distinct cultural identity. Turks were more fond of Arabian culture anyway.

Watchman

06-28-2006, 22:44

Well, it started all political anyway. True to form they had no trouble at all piling up grudges against one another after that (although I understand the Shi'ites, making up something like 10% of all Muslims, sort of have more legit ones).

I'd imagine some of the more kooky and extreme sects that sprang up over the centuries were able to unite them in righteous fury, though.

Reenk Roink

06-29-2006, 00:08

Poorly worded at best. A secular state is not a belief system, it's a framework that is neutral and tolerates no direct influence from clergy (indirect influence is possible via democracy, if present)

Nor was I implying that a secular system was a belief system in my initial statement of: "I'm pretty sure the 'benevolence' is more due on the fact that Islam acted as a neutral system in a superior position to the differing sects of Christianity; like a secular system today...".

The reason why made such an comparison was because the end result was similar; in the fact that the various branches of Christianity were treated relatively equally, due to a neutral and impartial government. Just as a secular system in America say, does not favor Lutherans over Calvinists, the Ottoman rule over Constantinople did not favor one branch of Christianity over another (of course Islam was favored above all others). Unless someone can show me that the Ottomans systematically favored one sect of Christianity over another, I will continue to hold this view.

I haven't read all the posts here, but I haven't noticed anyone mentioning how different branches of Islam were treated. Am I correct in believing that the officially sanctioned version was Sunni Islam? How did they treat Shiites and other Islamic minorities?

The officially sanctioned branch of Islam was Sunni Islam under the Ottomans. The treatment of Shi'ites and other sects varied, as the view of them varied. I'm quite sure that throughout Islamic history, the consensus among Sunni scholars was that that majority of Shi'ites are deviants but not infidels. The important theologians that declared them infidels single out the Rafida or Ismaili branches of Shi'ism, and not just Shi'ites in general (and I think Shi'ites held these branch offs to be infidels as well).

Under the Ottomans, they were just placed under the general Muslim millet.

Well, there's a basis in the Sha'ria for that actually- apostacy is punishable by death. Not saying that this constitutes a correct interpretation, but some Islamist nutters (the late Al-Zarqawi, not Bin Laden though) think that believers who believe in the Quran, but not the correct interpretation have left the one true faith.

Well, I don't think that would apply to Shi'ites as they were not seen as apostate. Although you are correct that apostasy for males was punishable by death in traditional Islamic thought (though for females it was different, sometimes they were imprisoned, banished, or even left alone or executed).

A (rather uneducated) theory I have is that the main historical reason for the animosity between Sunnis and Shiites stem from the fact that traditionally most Shiites were of Iranian (Persian, but also Kurdic) ethnicity, people with a distinct cultural identity. Turks were more fond of Arabian culture anyway.

I'm afraid that's most likely incorrect. Calling Persia the stronghold of Shi'ite Islam because of modern Shi'ite Iran is flawed. Previous Shi'ite hotbeds were in Egypt and North Africa, a la the Fatimid Caliphate. Persia actually fueled the towering Sunni figures of Islam after the Arab dominated Ummayad Caliphate fell.

L'Impresario

06-29-2006, 00:35

Just as a secular system in America say, does not favor Lutherans over Calvinists, the Ottoman rule over Constantinople did not favor one branch of Christianity over another (of course Islam was favored above all others). Unless someone can show me that the Ottomans systematically favored one sect of Christianity over another, I will continue to hold this view.

That's a weird statement to make, given that the overwhelming majority of Christians in the Ottoman empire were Orthodox.

The officially sanctioned branch of Islam was Sunni Islam under the Ottomans. The treatment of Shi'ites and other sects varied, as the view of them varied. I'm quite sure that throughout Islamic history, the consensus among Sunni scholars was that that majority of Shi'ites are deviants but not infidels. The important theologians that declared them infidels single out the Rafida or Ismaili branches of Shi'ism, and not just Shi'ites in general (and I think Shi'ites held these branch offs to be infidels as well).

Under the Ottomans, they were just placed under the general Muslim millet.

Well it's true that each sect received different treatment, the Alawites for example were persecuted. Ofcourse one could say that they cannot be considered as an islamic religion, although that can certainly be a point of debate.

Reenk Roink

06-29-2006, 00:47

That's a weird statement to make, given that the overwhelming majority of Christians in the Ottoman empire were Orthodox.

The statement was made in response to an accusation the the Ottomans were trying foster Catholic-Orthodox hatred.

L'Impresario

06-29-2006, 01:26

The statement was made in response to an accusation the the Ottomans were trying foster Catholic-Orthodox hatred.

If I read the previous posts correctly, it's about Gennadius II, right? I dare say that the reasons behind his being selected as Patriarch are common knowledge when talking about Ottoman rule over the Rum millet after the fall of Constantinople.

Reenk Roink

06-29-2006, 01:53

If I read the previous posts correctly, it's about Gennadius II, right? I dare say that the reasons behind his being selected as Patriarch are common knowledge when talking about Ottoman rule over the Rum millet after the fall of Constantinople.

I am well aware of Mehmed II's political reasons of appointing the Patriarch to prevent any sort of Christian alliance.

However, I will try to give you my personal thoughts as I said:

Also, the Ottomans were probably the most 'benevolent' of all of Constantinople's enemies. Would the Orthodox Church be tolerated better by a Catholic conqueror? Nope.

This was the statement that I assume brought this reply...

Pffft this benevolence is due to the Ottomans trying to foster hatred between Orthodox and Catholic Christians that existed beforehand.

I did not accept kataphraktoi's view that the Ottoman toleration of the Orthodox Church was to try and further the schism between them and the Catholic Church. My view is that the toleration is due to the fact that Islam was impartial to the differing sects of Christianity. Thus, when placed in a superior position, it would deal with differing groups fairly equally. Another example is Egypt. I tried to elaborate my point by comparing the situation to religions under a superior secular system. However, my wording may have been vague and thus caused confusion.

L'Impresario

06-29-2006, 02:20

I did not accept kataphraktoi's view that the Ottoman toleration of the Orthodox Church was to try and further the schism between them and the Catholic Church. My view is that the toleration is due to the fact that Islam was impartial to the differing sects of Christianity. Thus, when placed in a superior position, it would deal with differing groups fairly equally. Another example is Egypt. I tried to elaborate my point by comparing the situation to religions under a superior secular system. However, my wording may have been vague and thus caused confusion.

I more or less agree with the above but I think one should look at the situation on a case-by-case basis.
You also noted that toleration is the result of impartiality to the various christian beliefs. I think that this argument is not very explanatory, because you compare the religion of a significant part of the subjugated population, and the religion of the "western enemies". OTOH I can bring some later examples of catholic regions that fell to ottoman hands, like the aegean holdings of Venice. For example, the island of Siros with its overwhelming catholic majority seems to have enjoyed the same religious freedom with the other Christians all over the empire. But special conditions apply to each historical period and geographical location, so I won't attempt to generalize.

Reenk Roink

06-29-2006, 03:23

I more or less agree with the above but I think one should look at the situation on a case-by-case basis.
You also noted that toleration is the result of impartiality to the various christian beliefs. I think that this argument is not very explanatory, because you compare the religion of a significant part of the subjugated population, and the religion of the "western enemies". OTOH I can bring some later examples of catholic regions that fell to ottoman hands, like the aegean holdings of Venice. For example, the island of Siros with its overwhelming catholic majority seems to have enjoyed the same religious freedom with the other Christians all over the empire. But special conditions apply to each historical period and geographical location, so I won't attempt to generalize.

I think that my post was poorly worded again (sorry, when I reply, there are so many thoughts going in my head that I confuse myself, and by extension, others :sweatdrop:).

Certainly the argument that toleration being the result of impartiality is not explanatory. The toleration of other religious groups by the Ottomans is probably a complex mix of Islamic tradition and law and practical concerns. What I suppose I was trying to say was that the Orthodox Christians were not just treated well to create a schism between the two Churches, but rather as an extension of previous Islamic practice. Now, why the Muslim Ottomans would be more inclined to treat the Orthodox and Catholics similarly would be due to the fact that they are neutral, whereas if Constantinople was conquered by a Catholic nation, it would be likely that the Orthodox inhabitants would not be treated as well, due to the intimate differences between the two.

Kralizec

06-29-2006, 12:11

"I'm pretty sure the 'benevolence' is more due on the fact that Islam acted as a neutral system in a superior position to the differing sects of Christianity; like a secular system today...".

The reason why made such an comparison was because the end result was similar; in the fact that the various branches of Christianity were treated relatively equally, due to a neutral and impartial government.

A secular state doesn't necessarily treat its citizens well, it could just as well be a secular dictatorship. The necessary trait of a state to be secular is that is neutral towards all religions. Ottomans in fact created two classes of citizens- 1) muslims 2) non muslims; the latter were worse off, though most of the time only slightly.
The Ottomans are no more like a secular state then the medieval catholic states were, who had: 1) catholics 2) dead and/or opressed people.
That's not to say that Ottomans didn't treat their religious minorities well (comparatively, they did) but that doesn't make them secular. A secular state acknowledges the equality of atheists, christians, jews, muslims etc in principle.

kataphraktoi

06-29-2006, 16:41

mEH, yay or nay for Ottomans, any political system where religion is involved is still dodgy to live under.

The Ottoman Sultans took a keen interest in Christian affairs. Concerns with
fifth columns and pretexts for invasions made them far from neutral in religious affairs. To be fair, Christians do the same too. Theophilus accepted Khurramite heretics who fought against the Sunni Abbasids. Certainy realpolitik means that rulers will take opportunities as they come.

Watchman

06-29-2006, 19:38

mEH, yay or nay for Ottomans, any political system where religion is involved is still dodgy to live under.That would be about 95% of all political systems in human history, though...

Reenk Roink

06-30-2006, 14:42

A secular state doesn't necessarily treat its citizens well, it could just as well be a secular dictatorship. The necessary trait of a state to be secular is that is neutral towards all religions. Ottomans in fact created two classes of citizens- 1) muslims 2) non muslims; the latter were worse off, though most of the time only slightly.
The Ottomans are no more like a secular state then the medieval catholic states were, who had: 1) catholics 2) dead and/or opressed people.
That's not to say that Ottomans didn't treat their religious minorities well (comparatively, they did) but that doesn't make them secular. A secular state acknowledges the equality of atheists, christians, jews, muslims etc in principle.

I am well aware that an Ottoman state with Islam as the central religion cannot be secular as it contradicts the very definition of 'secular'.

Yet, I was pointing out that the Ottomans held both main versions of Christianity on equal ground (of course Islam was the official state religion) and thus were neutral to both, and would not (in theory though it is also apparent in practice) systematically favor one at the behest of another.

A secular state will hold the Orthodox and Catholic Church on equal ground, etc...

kataphraktoi

07-01-2006, 04:13

How can you be so sure that both sects were held on theoreticay neutral grounds?

The Ottoman's main Christian enemies were Catholic, why would the Ottoman Sultan not foster divisions between both, why would he still be neutral to their differences? Isn't the act of reinstating a prominent anti-unionist Patriarch enough to specify the Sutan Mehmed's partiality? Wouldn't you use religious differences between Catholics and Christians if you were the Ottoman Sultan? WHy let possible fifth columns develop? Isn't a pro-unionist Orthodox an example of a possible fifth columnist?

Watchman

07-02-2006, 22:42

I sincerely doubt if the Ottmans needed to do much work when it came to tensions between Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxs. Probably more like had to keep them off each others' faces much of the time - on the occasion both were present in a region in considerable numbers anyway; I'm under the impression that wasn't terribly common. And if you had for example a Catholic feudal aristocracy atop an Orthodox peasantry, well, odds of them uniting against you would seem pretty slim indeed unless you really went out of your way to piss off both...

The assorted religious high-ups in the Empire - the Orthodox patriarch and top imam mainly I understand, catholics not being all that numerous - were in any case the Sultan's faithful yes-men if he had any say in it. Anything else would have been rather politically silly given the Ottoman way of organizing these things.

DukeofSerbia

07-07-2006, 10:32

The last Romanoi Emperor was half Serb by his mother.

DukeofSerbia

07-07-2006, 18:51

The fall of Constantinople from Serbian view. This is written by dr Zeljko Fajfric in his book “Brankovic family” and it is Serbian view on that event from mid of XV century.

Chapter 9. The fall of Novo Brdo*

The whole winter of 1452/53 was in feverishly preparation of Turks** for assaulting Carigrad.*** By this time, one Byzantine called Urban who was expert in making cannons deserted to Turks and for three months he made first siege cannon. Sultan was pleased and he ordered that the first huge siege cannon to cast which should be help in breaking walls of Carigrad. When cannon was cast it was needed 50 pairs of ox to move its and 700 men for the support of cannon. Carigrad quickly became Mehmed’s obsession and he thought every night how to break into city. In January 1453, troops started to come under walls of Carigrad and the first come the greatest scum who had task to ravage everything around the city. In day the 2nd of April 1453, sultan Mehmed came under Carigrad. He commanded with army of 100 000 men and inside city it was hardly 7 000 defenders. Siege was started. In the army which surrounded city was one unit of Serbs sent by despot Djuradj Brankovic****. There is one story that despot didn’t know where he had to send his knights because sultan didn’t say:”At that time, tsar***** ordered to despot that he sent 1 500 knights by their agreement, and said that after city is finished that he will attack Karaman state”(Konstantin from Ostrovica). End showed that those troops had nothing with assault on city. Task of Serbian knights was guarding of Jedrene gateway and they did that unwilling. More important task had Serbian miners from Novo Brdo who sapped walls.

It is hard to describe what happened under Carigrad’s walls and to say every detail for which this siege will remember. For our story, that’s not so important. 29th may 1453, Mehmed ordered general assault which ended with fall of Carigrad:Turks took Carigrad from Christians in May, day 29th. But if citizens of town took their (buried) treasuries and used on general good, that great trouble would never happen”(count George Brankovic). In this assault was killed tsar Konstantin. By first, nobody know where was his body, but then came one Janissary to sultan who said that he saw a man at Romanos gate who look like as tsar. This information gave him great award: And then tsar awarded his Janissary with horses, money, beautiful clothes and tents and he gave him Agidin duchy****** in Anatolia”(Konstantin from Ostrovica). Head of Tsar Konstantin was cut off and put on pillar that everybody can saw that Byzantium doesn’t have any more tsars. Nobody knows where the grave of the last Byzantium tsar is. After that started three days ravaging, as was promised by sultan before assault.

…

After three days of ravaging, when almost 60 000 Christians were slaughtered and enslaved, Mehmed ordered to his soldiers to left the city. This was the end. Byzantium Empire went into history and Carigrad became Istanbul. News of fall of Carigrad deeply hearted despot and he didn’t want to see anybody three days in his court. This news mostly hearted him because he knew that Mehmed will not stop on Carigrad’s conquest and he was the next target….

Some explanations:
* Novo Brdo was the most fortified town in medieval Serbia and the greatest mining centre.
** Ottomans are always called Turks in Serbia for unknown reason to me
*** Carigrad is Slavic name of Constantinople.
**** Despot Djuradj (English George) Brankovic was Mehmed’s vassal and unit was commanded by duke Jaksa.
***** Tsar is Mehmed.
****** Whatever that mean…

DukeofSerbia

07-07-2006, 18:54

Yet it was inevitable. If not in 1453 it would have happened a few years later; it could have happened in 1405 had Timur not come along to cut a few Ottoman and Serbian heads.

Angora battle was in 1402 (28th July) not in 1405. And Serbian army under prince Stefan Lazarevic left the battlefield when cavalrymen from Minor Asia betrayed Bayezid. Serbian army was the bravest in battle and that even admitted Timur who after battle didn’t kill only captured Serbs and Stefan later ransomed them. Captured was Grgur Brankovic but his brother (future despot of Serbia) Djuradj ransomed him. And Stefan Lazarevic saved Bayezid’s son Suleiman.

Yes, that was the Battle of Kosovo, where Sultan Murad I was killed by the Serbs and their allies. However, even though the Sultan died, Kosovo was a great Ottoman victory, and the Balkan coalition was crushed. Also, the dead Murad was succeeded by Bayezid I, who was even more successful in his conquests, so Constantinople was just as doomed.

Battle of Kosovo wasn’t great Ottoman victory. Unfortunately, many in Serbia believe that we lost that battle because Ottomans ruled over 400 years and we accepted Ottoman propaganda. The fact is that earliest reports said that Christians (Serbs) won. And there weren’t any Balkan coalition. Serbian force in centre was commanded by prince Lazar (who was ruler of Serbia), right wing by Vuk Brankovic (who was ruler in Kosovo and Metohija) and left wing by Duke Vlatko Vukovic (Bosnian Serb sent by king Tvrtko who was King of Serbs, Bosnia, Seacoast and Western Parts). So, pure army composed of Serbs.

The most important battle was held on 26th September of 1371, when Ottoman general Lala Shahin defeted Serbian army led by King Vukan and his brother despot Ugljesa. Everything about that battle is unclear, except oucome that Serbian army was annihilated.

And the trace of this is left forever- nowadays in the Rhodopes there are many Bulgarian Muslims ( ethnic Bulgarians) who are part of the Bulgarian nation. Nothing bad they are Muslims but it's important how they were converted to the religion with the scimitar.

Are they so called Pomaks?

In Bosnia many Serbs became Moslems because of high Ottoman repression. Sultan Suleyman I Magnificent resettled some 20 000 Bosnian Serbs in Minor Asia. Now, those Moslems in Bosnia are Bosnjaks.