Printable View
...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:
Really, to this day. Thats amazing. Such a long time ago. They used cannon, to blast the walls didn't they?
They blasted the towering walls of the city. :shame:
If it wouldn`t have happened it would definitely be easier for Turkey to get into the EU....
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
I don't get it. Back to topic please.
And "Britain" ceased to be a republic. Such an eventful day! :dizzy2:
Eh.. The word republic used sparingly, of course.
:embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
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.
The Fall of Constantinople marked the end of the Middle Ages. :book:
At least that's what I think.
That's one of the versions (my favourite too).According to some historians it ends in 1492 or in XVIIth century according to others Anyway fallingQuote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
of Constantinople is a great event . How sad and tragic. Where are you Roman glory? And where did the Balkan countries go...
Yes this might easily have something to do with it. It really is a very tragic rememberance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
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:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
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!
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:
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".'
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
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...
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 -Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Austriae est imperare orbi universo
("Austria will rule the whole world")
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Wow its not a truely Roman but still very cool. I bet there are still decendants of the Tzars in Russia too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Nah they're all hiding here in Britain. Silly sods.
*beats away exiled foreign monarchs with a broom*
Uck, eh? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
I hope the broom is clean and it's a Nimbus 2000. :skull:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithradates
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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?
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.