The capture of Constantinople is traditionally presented by historians, especially Turkish historians, as an epochal event. The great Muslim army captures the "second Rome". - the last Christian city in Asia Minor, the last fragment of the once mighty Roman Empire. There is even a panorama in Istanbul that tells of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. It's flawless: I love this type of construction, I've seen panoramas in Sevastopol and Volgograd, but Istanbul's is really grandiose.
And yet, despite all the pathos, there was no heroism in the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. On the contrary, the battle for a "second Rome" does credit to the Byzantines and Europeans who defended the city. And Constantinople was defended so that until the last moment, it was not clear who would win the battle. Let me give some historical context to make it clear what the "heroism" of the Turkish army was.
By 1453, when the Turks decided to storm Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire had completely lost its former greatness. All that was left of the once great Eastern Roman Empire was Constantinople itself, part of what is now Greece, and a few islands in the Mediterranean and Sea of Marmara. It was a country shattered by internal economic problems and constant wars, and it was splintering.
The Ottoman Empire, on the contrary, was gaining strength. It had all of Asia Minor and the Middle East under its rule. The last crusade against the Turks ended in failure, the Ottomans invaded the Balkans and already reached the territory of modern Hungary and Serbia. The battle between the Ottomans and Byzantines for Constantinople was presented as a fight between a decrepit old man and a young man who had gained strength. Of course, the armies of the powers were not equal either, and this was clearly visible in the storming of the city.
The Byzantine Empire was able to field about five thousand warriors-all those who could hold arms in the entire empire. Another couple of thousand men were sent by European allies: sailors from Crete, Genoese and Venetians, who would not benefit if the Turks seized the straits, because Genoa and Venice lived off trade. Mehmed II brought under the walls of Constantinople, according to various estimates, from 100 to 150 thousand people. About half of them were selected soldiers-Janissaries, the rest - the mercenaries from the Hungarians, Arabs and Slavs.
That is, the preponderance on the side of Turks was not three times, at which ought to take a fortress by all laws of military business, but about 15 times. With such quantitative advantage Turks could throw the Byzantines with their caps, but for some reason it did not happen, and the defense was delayed for almost two months. And technically the Turks had a huge advantage, because they had a lot more guns, which by the standards of the mid-15th century were as strange weaponry as nowadays space blasters. Well, or at least nuclear weapons.
The Hungarian cannonmaker Orban made a huge cannon for the Turkish sultan, which was able to pierce the thick stone walls of Constantinople. However, Orban first offered his services to the Byzantine emperor, but he could not pay for his work, so he went to the Turks: nothing personal, only business.
On the sea, the Turks also had 4-5 times more ships than the Byzantine fleet. With such numerical and technical advantage, the Turks had to capture the city in a week at most, but for some reason Constantinople held on for nearly two months. The Byzantines not only defended themselves, but also conducted retaliatory sorties, especially at sea.
According to one version, the city's defenses collapsed after a traitor opened the gates to the Turks. According to another, Orban's cannon penetrated the thick walls, and through the breach the Turks rushed to the assault, while the defenders were too few to repulse this attack.
Be that as it may, the two-month attack on the fortress with a fifteen-fold superiority of attackers in manpower and equipment, any military historian would write in the shameful book of the commander and, conversely, note the remarkable spirit of the defenders and the competent organization of the defense of the city, despite the small number of defenders.
So was the capture of Constantinople heroic or maybe it was just the defense? What do you think about it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.