553 years ago...

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

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?

Quote:

---

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?

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:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L'Impresario

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L'Impresario

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L'Impresario

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.

Quote:

---

"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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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...

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?

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.

The last Romanoi Emperor was half Serb by his mother.

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…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perplexed

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

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.