Concerning the Fall of Constantinople...

[Foinikas]

@SilentEagle said in another thread:

"Meanwhile Ottomans never harmed civilians, non combatants, they didn’t even loot the city which is a common practice after conquest of any city in that period."

Since I'm locked out of that thread,I wanted to reply to this because it's historically wrong. After the Fall of Constantinople,the Ottoman soldiers were allowed the usual 3 day looting.

Specifically:

Leonard of Chios witnessed the horrible atrocities that followed the fall of Constantinople. The Ottoman invaders pillaged the city, murdered or enslaved tens of thousands of people, and raped women and children. Even nuns were subjected to sexual assault by the Ottomans:

All the valuables and other booty were taken to their camp, and as many as sixty thousand Christians who had been captured. The crosses which had been placed on the roofs or the walls of churches were torn down and trampled. Women were raped, virgins deflowered and youths forced to take part in shameful obscenities. The nuns left behind, even those who were obviously such, were disgraced with foul debaucheries.[60]

During three days of pillaging, the Ottoman invaders captured children and took them away to their tents, and became rich by plundering the imperial palace and the houses of Constantinople. The Ottoman official Tursun Beg wrote:

After having completely overcome the enemy, the soldiers began to plunder the city. They enslaved boys and girls and took silver and gold vessels, precious stones and all sorts of valuable goods and fabrics from the imperial palace and the houses of the rich... Every tent was filled with handsome boys and beautiful girls.[61]: 37 

If any citizens of Constantinople tried to resist, they were slaughtered. According to Niccolò Barbaro, "all through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city". According to Makarios Melissenos:

As soon as the Turks were inside the City, they began to seize and enslave every person who came their way; all those who tried to offer resistance were put to the sword. In many places the ground could not be seen, as it was covered by heaps of corpses.[62]: 130 

Much of the Ottoman persecution of the city's citizens had overt religious overtones or undertones. The Ottoman soldiers were reported to have engaged in vileness within all the churches; the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras's daughter was forced to lie on the Hagia Sophia's altar with a crucifix under her head and gang raped by several Ottomans.[63]

The women of Constantinople suffered from rape at the hands of Ottoman forces.[64] According to historian Philip Mansel, widespread persecution of the city's civilian inhabitants took place, resulting in thousands of murders and rapes, and 30,000 civilians being enslaved or forcibly deported.[4] The vast majority of the citizens of Constantinople were forced to become slaves.[65][5][66]

According to Nicolas de Nicolay, slaves were displayed naked at the city's slave market, and young girls could be purchased.[67] The elder refugees in the Hagia Sophia were slaughtered and the women raped.[68] George Sphrantzes says that people of both genders were raped inside Hagia Sophia. According to Steven Runciman most of the elderly and the infirm/wounded and sick who were refugees inside the churches were killed, and the remainder were chained up and sold into slavery.[69]

Byzantine historian Doukas and Leonard of Chios stated after the fall that Mehmed II ordered the 14-year-old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him "for his pleasure". When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[70]

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica Mehmed II "permitted an initial period of looting that saw the destruction of many Orthodox churches", but tried to prevent a complete sack of the city.[71] The looting was extremely thorough in certain parts of the city. On 2 June, the Sultan found the city largely deserted and half in ruins; churches had been desecrated and stripped, houses were no longer habitable, and stores and shops were emptied. He is famously reported to have been moved to tears by this, saying, "What a city we have given over to plunder and destruction."[23]: 152 

Looting was carried out on a massive scale by sailors and marines who entered the city via other walls before they had been suppressed by regular troops, who were beyond the main gate. According to David Nicolle, the ordinary people were treated better by their Ottoman conquerors than their ancestors had been by Crusaders back in 1204, stating that only about 4,000 Greeks died in the siege, while according to a Venetian Senate report, 50 Venetian noblemen and over 500 other Venetian civilians died during the siege.[72] Many of the riches of the city were already looted in 1204, leaving only limited loot to the Ottomans.[73]


-----------------

Mehmed II granted his soldiers three days to plunder the city, as he had promised them and in accordance with the custom of the time.[23]: 145 [74] Soldiers fought over the possession of some of the spoils of war.[75]: 283  On the third day of the conquest, Mehmed II ordered all looting to stop and issued a proclamation that all Christians who had avoided capture or who had been ransomed could return to their homes without further molestation, although many had no homes to return to, and many more had been taken captive and not ransomed.[23]: 150–51  Byzantine historian George Sphrantzes, an eyewitness to the fall of Constantinople, described the Sultan's actions:[76][77]

On the third day after the fall of our city, the Sultan celebrated his victory with a great, joyful triumph. He issued a proclamation: the citizens of all ages who had managed to escape detection were to leave their hiding places throughout the city and come out into the open, as they were to remain free and no question would be asked. He further declared the restoration of houses and property to those who had abandoned our city before the siege. If they returned home, they would be treated according to their rank and religion, as if nothing had changed.
— George Sphrantzes

The Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque, but the Greek Orthodox Church was allowed to remain intact and Gennadius Scholarius was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. This was once thought to be the origin of the Ottoman millet system; however, it is now considered a myth and no such system existed in the fifteenth century.[78][79]

 

[nang2]

@SilentEagle said in another thread:


Since I'm locked out of that thread,I wanted to reply to this because it's historically wrong. After the Fall of Constantinople,the Ottoman soldiers were allowed the usual 3 day looting.

Specifically:

Leonard of Chios witnessed the horrible atrocities that followed the fall of Constantinople. The Ottoman invaders pillaged the city, murdered or enslaved tens of thousands of people, and raped women and children. Even nuns were subjected to sexual assault by the Ottomans:




During three days of pillaging, the Ottoman invaders captured children and took them away to their tents, and became rich by plundering the imperial palace and the houses of Constantinople. The Ottoman official Tursun Beg wrote:




If any citizens of Constantinople tried to resist, they were slaughtered. According to Niccolò Barbaro, "all through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city". According to Makarios Melissenos:




Much of the Ottoman persecution of the city's citizens had overt religious overtones or undertones. The Ottoman soldiers were reported to have engaged in vileness within all the churches; the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras's daughter was forced to lie on the Hagia Sophia's altar with a crucifix under her head and gang raped by several Ottomans.[63]

The women of Constantinople suffered from rape at the hands of Ottoman forces.[64] According to historian Philip Mansel, widespread persecution of the city's civilian inhabitants took place, resulting in thousands of murders and rapes, and 30,000 civilians being enslaved or forcibly deported.[4] The vast majority of the citizens of Constantinople were forced to become slaves.[65][5][66]

According to Nicolas de Nicolay, slaves were displayed naked at the city's slave market, and young girls could be purchased.[67] The elder refugees in the Hagia Sophia were slaughtered and the women raped.[68] George Sphrantzes says that people of both genders were raped inside Hagia Sophia. According to Steven Runciman most of the elderly and the infirm/wounded and sick who were refugees inside the churches were killed, and the remainder were chained up and sold into slavery.[69]

Byzantine historian Doukas and Leonard of Chios stated after the fall that Mehmed II ordered the 14-year-old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him "for his pleasure". When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[70]

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica Mehmed II "permitted an initial period of looting that saw the destruction of many Orthodox churches", but tried to prevent a complete sack of the city.[71] The looting was extremely thorough in certain parts of the city. On 2 June, the Sultan found the city largely deserted and half in ruins; churches had been desecrated and stripped, houses were no longer habitable, and stores and shops were emptied. He is famously reported to have been moved to tears by this, saying, "What a city we have given over to plunder and destruction."[23]: 152 

Looting was carried out on a massive scale by sailors and marines who entered the city via other walls before they had been suppressed by regular troops, who were beyond the main gate. According to David Nicolle, the ordinary people were treated better by their Ottoman conquerors than their ancestors had been by Crusaders back in 1204, stating that only about 4,000 Greeks died in the siege, while according to a Venetian Senate report, 50 Venetian noblemen and over 500 other Venetian civilians died during the siege.[72] Many of the riches of the city were already looted in 1204, leaving only limited loot to the Ottomans.[73]


-----------------

Mehmed II granted his soldiers three days to plunder the city, as he had promised them and in accordance with the custom of the time.[23]: 145 [74] Soldiers fought over the possession of some of the spoils of war.[75]: 283  On the third day of the conquest, Mehmed II ordered all looting to stop and issued a proclamation that all Christians who had avoided capture or who had been ransomed could return to their homes without further molestation, although many had no homes to return to, and many more had been taken captive and not ransomed.[23]: 150–51  Byzantine historian George Sphrantzes, an eyewitness to the fall of Constantinople, described the Sultan's actions:[76][77]




The Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque, but the Greek Orthodox Church was allowed to remain intact and Gennadius Scholarius was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. This was once thought to be the origin of the Ottoman millet system; however, it is now considered a myth and no such system existed in the fifteenth century.[78][79]

One thing to admire Genghis Khan is that though his army was a super efficient killing machine, they looted quite orderly. All loots were cataloged and divided among all his troops, including those who had fallen.

 

[Azadkashmir]

sound too much to be true sound more of british/american method of plundering, raping.

 

[Zhukov]

Looting did happened that is documented and no ome can deny it. But how much spices one can add to story is ones own choice i believe.
BTW One thing historians do agree on is that Fall and Plunder of Constantinople under hands of Crusaders was much much worse then ottomans. And europeans always undermine thr massacre carried by crusaders just because of common religion and history. While ottomans are aleays favorite target.

 

[Wergeland]

Looting did happened that is documented and no ome can deny it. But how much spices one can add to story is ones own choice i believe.
BTW One thing historians do agree on is that Fall and Plunder of Constantinople under hands of Crusaders was much much worse then ottomans. And europeans always undermine thr massacre carried by crusaders just because of common religion and history. While ottomans are aleays favorite target.

Its true

Byzantine Empire and Constantinople was plundered and finished off by Frankish Crusaders. In many ways Ottomans rebuilt Constantinople and Anatolian power back to its former glory and even surpassing that.

Most people know this but christian europeans are reluctant to accept it.

 

[EAGLE777]

There was no looting it’s all a lie and propaganda. Our glorious Fatih Sultan Mehmed is a holy man of God.

And if there was any looting then it means it was permissable under special circumstances.

 

[EAGLE777]

Sword of Holy Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror.

If he wish so there will not be a single soul remain alive from greece until austria what is just one city?

 

[Foinikas]

There was no looting it’s all a lie and propaganda. Our glorious Fatih Sultan Mehmed is a holy man of God.

And if there was any looting then it means it was permissable under special circumstances.

So you doubt all those sources who were present during the siege and afterwards? You even doubt the Ottoman source?

sound too much to be true sound more of british/american method of plundering, raping.

But how much spices one can add to story is ones own choice i believe.

What is so hard for you guys to believe? The historical sources are there. You could read Nicolo Barbaro's,Georgios Sphranzes,Michael Kritovoulos' and Michael Doukas' chronicles about it. Also,the research from top Byzantinologists like Runciman,Ostrogorsky and Nicolle.

It's kind of funny that some Pakistanis have a picture of the Ottomans as this benevolent,honorable army that never did anything bad It's not like in Ertugrul of Muhtesem Yizigil

And if there was any looting then it means it was permissable under special circumstances.

Aaah kardes,you said they didn't look like it was the custom of the era and they didn't hurt anyone nor plunder! I just wanted to let you know about this and there are no pms here or else I would have sent you a message.

And europeans always undermine thr massacre carried by crusaders just because of common religion and history. While ottomans are aleays favorite target.

Strangely enough,the REAL byzantinologists and historians stress the destruction of the City by the Crusaders.
But on this matter,you have testimonies from people who lived back then and were present during the siege. You can read the chronicle of Choniates about the Crusaders' plunder and crimes in 1204 too,if you want of course. And i suggest you do. It's history.

 

[Azadkashmir]

i dont know it sound exaggerated like a movie scene.

 

[imadul]

@SilentEagle said in another thread:


Since I'm locked out of that thread,I wanted to reply to this because it's historically wrong. After the Fall of Constantinople,the Ottoman soldiers were allowed the usual 3 day looting.

Specifically:

Leonard of Chios witnessed the horrible atrocities that followed the fall of Constantinople. The Ottoman invaders pillaged the city, murdered or enslaved tens of thousands of people, and raped women and children. Even nuns were subjected to sexual assault by the Ottomans:




During three days of pillaging, the Ottoman invaders captured children and took them away to their tents, and became rich by plundering the imperial palace and the houses of Constantinople. The Ottoman official Tursun Beg wrote:




If any citizens of Constantinople tried to resist, they were slaughtered. According to Niccolò Barbaro, "all through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city". According to Makarios Melissenos:




Much of the Ottoman persecution of the city's citizens had overt religious overtones or undertones. The Ottoman soldiers were reported to have engaged in vileness within all the churches; the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras's daughter was forced to lie on the Hagia Sophia's altar with a crucifix under her head and gang raped by several Ottomans.[63]

The women of Constantinople suffered from rape at the hands of Ottoman forces.[64] According to historian Philip Mansel, widespread persecution of the city's civilian inhabitants took place, resulting in thousands of murders and rapes, and 30,000 civilians being enslaved or forcibly deported.[4] The vast majority of the citizens of Constantinople were forced to become slaves.[65][5][66]

According to Nicolas de Nicolay, slaves were displayed naked at the city's slave market, and young girls could be purchased.[67] The elder refugees in the Hagia Sophia were slaughtered and the women raped.[68] George Sphrantzes says that people of both genders were raped inside Hagia Sophia. According to Steven Runciman most of the elderly and the infirm/wounded and sick who were refugees inside the churches were killed, and the remainder were chained up and sold into slavery.[69]

Byzantine historian Doukas and Leonard of Chios stated after the fall that Mehmed II ordered the 14-year-old son of the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras brought to him "for his pleasure". When the father refused to deliver his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.[70]

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica Mehmed II "permitted an initial period of looting that saw the destruction of many Orthodox churches", but tried to prevent a complete sack of the city.[71] The looting was extremely thorough in certain parts of the city. On 2 June, the Sultan found the city largely deserted and half in ruins; churches had been desecrated and stripped, houses were no longer habitable, and stores and shops were emptied. He is famously reported to have been moved to tears by this, saying, "What a city we have given over to plunder and destruction."[23]: 152 

Looting was carried out on a massive scale by sailors and marines who entered the city via other walls before they had been suppressed by regular troops, who were beyond the main gate. According to David Nicolle, the ordinary people were treated better by their Ottoman conquerors than their ancestors had been by Crusaders back in 1204, stating that only about 4,000 Greeks died in the siege, while according to a Venetian Senate report, 50 Venetian noblemen and over 500 other Venetian civilians died during the siege.[72] Many of the riches of the city were already looted in 1204, leaving only limited loot to the Ottomans.[73]


-----------------

Mehmed II granted his soldiers three days to plunder the city, as he had promised them and in accordance with the custom of the time.[23]: 145 [74] Soldiers fought over the possession of some of the spoils of war.[75]: 283  On the third day of the conquest, Mehmed II ordered all looting to stop and issued a proclamation that all Christians who had avoided capture or who had been ransomed could return to their homes without further molestation, although many had no homes to return to, and many more had been taken captive and not ransomed.[23]: 150–51  Byzantine historian George Sphrantzes, an eyewitness to the fall of Constantinople, described the Sultan's actions:[76][77]




The Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque, but the Greek Orthodox Church was allowed to remain intact and Gennadius Scholarius was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. This was once thought to be the origin of the Ottoman millet system; however, it is now considered a myth and no such system existed in the fifteenth century.[78][79]

Ottoman soldiers may have been involved in sporadic events but we cannot base our arguments based upon Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an authentic source.

1453, Constantinople was way passed its past glory. Though Byzantium soldiers fought most bravely and Usmani Turks gave thousands of lives, Emperor could not maintain a large armed army because he did have much in the treasures.
Turks might have involved after they breached the walls and losing so many lives but historical facts have to be collected. Whose version is correct?
One has to collect all evidence incuding circumstantial and then look at it.
But we passed that phase. Very difficult task. We are already into next waves of multi faceted wars.

 

[Foinikas]

Ottoman soldiers may have been involved in sporadic events but we cannot base our arguments based upon Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an authentic source.

Sir,it's not about Wikipedia. It's about the sources and the sources are valid. You can check yourself what all the chroniclers of the time wrote.

1453, Constantinople was way passed its past glory. Though Byzantium soldiers fought most bravely and Usmani Turks gave thousands of lives, Emperor could not maintain a large armed army because he did have much in the treasures

It was nothing more but a City-State with some of the surrounding areas in Thrace and the Despotate of Mystras. Even the population had diminished. The idiotic civil wars had destroyed the empire.

But Thank God,the last emperor was a great man,good,honest,brave.

Whose version is correct?
One has to collect all evidence incuding circumstantial and then look at it.

But that's most of the evidence,these are testimonies from people who were in involved in the siege.

 

[jamal18]

Muslims need an historical reality check.

 

[imadul]

Sir,it's not about Wikipedia. It's about the sources and the sources are valid. You can check yourself what all the chroniclers of the time wrote.



It was nothing more but a City-State with some of the surrounding areas in Thrace and the Despotate of Mystras. Even the population had diminished. The idiotic civil wars had destroyed the empire.

But Thank God,the last emperor was a great man,good,honest,brave.


But that's most of the evidence,these are testimonies from people who were in involved in the siege.

Still, how fair judgement could be given.
In the past I may have done my own research but no brain and no time

These days I have been in search of God.

 

[Zhukov]

So you doubt all those sources who were present during the siege and afterwards? You even doubt the Ottoman source?



What is so hard for you guys to believe? The historical sources are there. You could read Nicolo Barbaro's,Georgios Sphranzes,Michael Kritovoulos' and Michael Doukas' chronicles about it. Also,the research from top Byzantinologists like Runciman,Ostrogorsky and Nicolle.

It's kind of funny that some Pakistanis have a picture of the Ottomans as this benevolent,honorable army that never did anything bad It's not like in Ertugrul of Muhtesem Yizigil


Aaah kardes,you said they didn't look like it was the custom of the era and they didn't hurt anyone nor plunder! I just wanted to let you know about this and there are no pms here or else I would have sent you a message.


Strangely enough,the REAL byzantinologists and historians stress the destruction of the City by the Crusaders.
But on this matter,you have testimonies from people who lived back then and were present during the siege. You can read the chronicle of Choniates about the Crusaders' plunder and crimes in 1204 too,if you want of course. And i suggest you do. It's history.

Where did i said Ottomans were holy army who did no wrong stuff?. Ottomans are a lot more controvetial in muslim world then you can imagine. Ask Egyptians , Syrians or Gulf Arabs for a start.
I cannot comment on Ottoman issues with Balkans Greece and other Eastern europan and Eurasian regions, Thats a purely European Geopolitical issue but the historic ties of Indian Muslims with Ottoman empire ows to the fact that Muslim Rulers of India always accepted legitimacy and had close ties to Ottomans sultan as Caliph of Muslims (Another story).
And ways As an Asian One thing i do credit ottomans for was that Ottomans did sealed off european entrance into asia. and hence stopping european Armies and Influence into Middle east and central asia for a long long time untill industrialization and secularism took over europe and Church was thrown out of Governments.
And after complete distruction of Muslim Authority by Halagu khan during sack of Baghdad , Ottomans did somewhat restored stability and sanctity of the Hejaz. Again you cannot understand these things without understanding mindset of a Muslim and the crisis they faced after sack of baghdad. Imagine how you feel about Polish king and Polish Hussars when they literally saved central europe from complete ottoman domination during battle of vienna. What would have happened if vienna had fallen?

 

[Foinikas]

Where did i said Ottomans were holy army who did no wrong stuff?. Ottomans are a lot more controvetial in muslim world then you can imagine. Ask Egyptians , Syrians or Gulf Arabs for a start.
I cannot comment on Ottoman issues with Balkans Greece and other Eastern europan and Eurasian regions, Thats a purely European Geopolitical issue but the historic ties of Indian Muslims with Ottoman empire ows to the fact that Muslim Rulers of India always accepted legitimacy and had close ties to Ottomans sultan as Caliph of Muslims (Another story).
And ways As an Asian One thing i do credit ottomans for was that Ottomans did sealed off european entrance into asia. and hence stopping european Armies and Influence into Middle east and central asia for a long long time untill industrialization and secularism took over europe and Church was thrown out of Governments.
And after complete distruction of Muslim Authority by Halagu khan during sack of Baghdad , Ottomans did somewhat restored stability and sanctity of the Hejaz. Again you cannot understand these things without understanding mindset of a Muslim and the crisis they faced after sack of baghdad. Imagine how you feel about Polish king and Polish Hussars when they literally saved central europe from complete ottoman domination during battle of vienna. What would have happened if vienna had fallen?

I respect that opinion sir.