History: What happened to Constantinople?

[Chrysia]

"The Byzantine spokesmen did their work well, emphasizing not the prizes to be won but the religious aspects of the appeal: the sufferings of the Christian communities in the East, the submergence of Asia Minor beneath the Turkish tide, the presence of infidel armies at the very gates of Constantinople and the immense threat, not only to their Empire but to all Christendom."

John Julius Norwich, A Short Hitory of Byzantium, page 256

That doesn't at all intimate that the proposal was meant as a call to reclaim the Holy Lands. "The religious aspects of the appeal" seems, to me, to relate more to Christian concepts of charity and the superiority of any Christian denomination to Islam, based on what's after the colon there. Nothing after the colon even references Jerusalem.

[Elegiac]

Islam, and the Ottoman Empire especially, was a threat to the whole existence of the Christian world. Trying to claim or pretend otherwise would be extreme intellectual dishonesty.

And by that metric Christianity and its empires were a threat to the whole existence of the Islamic world.

This is what I mean by reductionist history; it has no nuance and glosses over the non-military interactions between the two cultural spheres.

Still, interestingly things balanced out somewhat. What was lost in the east was regained in the west when Reconquista ended in success.

Lolwhat.

Regardless, the "Turkish Menace" was a very real and very grave threat to Christendom and was only held in check through centuries of non-stop resistance. Even as late as in 1683, when people like Newton and Hooke were laying down the foundations of modern science, the Turks besiged Vienna with a massive army outnumbering the defenders by more than 10 to 1. The city's fate was hanging by a thread when a relief force -- still only half of the size of the Ottoman army -- broke the siege.

Kay. How much of this was legitimate threat and how much was simply a popular boogeyman in the vein of a 17th century Al Qaeda or ISIS.

[Chrysia]

The Ottomans were a large reason it was the corpse of an empire.

I never said Islam is the enemy of mankind, that was the voices in your head, I said that Islam was regarded as the common enemy of both East and West Christendom, which is a wholly accurate statement. They also regarded each other as enemies, but such is factional infighting.

The history of Islam is one of aggressive military expansion, it was started for that very purpose. If that offends your feelings in some way, then tough shit. I will call a spade a spade, you can call it a handheld agricultural soil removal instrument if you so wish, but do not expect others to do so.

Constantine did the exact same thing with Christianity that Mohammed did with Islam, militarised it, the main difference being that Constnatine took an existing religion and Mohammed created one.

The Byzantine Empire was restored in 1261, but was a shadow of the great Empire that fell in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. That restoration is 38 years before the Ottoman Empire even began to exist. The Ottomans were not the main reason the Byzantine Empire was a corpse of an Empire, Catholics and earlier Islamic empires were.

[Elegiac]

They were the two main protagonists, they are who the contemproary historians wrote about. We can only know the feelings about people from other parts of Christendom if people wrote about them and not many people wrote about how Michalis the lavatory cleaner felt in respect of the Westerners.

See what I mean by casting history as a narrative with protagonists and antagonists?

No, I am not.

You've just stated it several times.

- - - Updated - - -

Shoo postmodernist, shoo.

I'm sorry that it's no longer fashionable to analyse history from a moralist perspective.

[Toogoodman]

He wanted to reclaim Asia Minor and the Holy Lands, his appeal to Pope Urban was over the Holy Lands and for good reason. To try and claim that the Muslim armies were not regarded as a common threat is bizarre, as both the West and East regarded them as such.

[UOTE]Also, no. Muslim expansion happened in several waves over the course of a few centuries; the Holy Land was lost during the first wave which was stymied at Tours in France and then at Akrokoinon in Asia Minor. The Crusades happened in response to a power shift in the Levant whereby the Abbasids fragmented in power and the Seljuks became preponderant, who were far less tolerant of pilgrimage into the Holy Land than their predecessors; coupled with their overtures into Anatolia, this produced a natural reaction.

The Reconquista did not represent the 'end' of Muslim expansion in any sense; it started shortly after the Moors were repelled in France and was a continuous process over the next few centuries. The battles at Vienna and Lepanto ended the third wave of expansion under the Ottomans.

You're condensing and manipulating quite a bit of history to fit your narrative, honestly.

I am condensing history as these events happened over long periods of time and I am not writing an essay here. The Muslims started the aggressive expansion, part of which was the fall of Constantinople in the East, the Reconquista ended the Muslim expansion into South Western Europe.[/QUOTE]

Not only this, the Muslim armies had been in control of northern Africa for some time at the time Constantinople was sacked, they took Alexandria and Carthage 100s of years prior after Justinian had reconquered them and lost them again. The Byzantines were also essentially a shell, and weren't even regarded as existing as a Empire for nearly 100 years after the last crusade looted the city (think high elves living in stormwind lol). When Constantinople fell, it was literally the definition of a "city state", they didn't even own the lands directly outside the walls of the city.

They lost North Africa, their primary bread basket, then they lost Antioch, and finally the Golden horn, they were living well ahead of the rest of the world in terms of technology, but had such a small population that they could never defend the city. If Constantinople wasn't the gateway to Europe, it would have probably never even been touched, but they were situated on the most prominent trade route in history, they were living on borrowed time.

[Kalis]

That doesn't at all intimate that the proposal was meant as a call to reclaim the Holy Lands. "The religious aspects of the appeal" seems, to me, to relate more to Christian concepts of charity and the superiority of any Christian denomination to Islam, based on what's after the colon there. Nothing after the colon even references Jerusalem.

You have not read the book, so there is that.

It is a paperback, so I had to type that out manually, there are plenty more references to it and it is clear that John Julius Norwich thinks Alexius Comnenus wanted to reclaim the Holy Lands for Christendom, or at least that was how he framed it to Pope Urban. I am going to go with the expert.

[Toogoodman]

Waiting for the 5th crusade so we can purge Muslims out and retake it.

Lol probably not as far-fetched as you think. I'm sure a lot of the Baltic states would love this, and Russia would be at the forefront.

[Kalis]

The Byzantine Empire was restored in 1261, but was a shadow of the great Empire that fell in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. That restoration is 38 years before the Ottoman Empire even began to exist. The Ottomans were not the main reason the Byzantine Empire was a corpse of an Empire, Catholics and earlier Islamic empires were.

They were a large reason it was a corpse of an empire, which is what I said.

See what I mean by casting history as a narrative with protagonists and antagonists?

Your argument has no substance.

You made a claim about what people thought a millenia ago, then when I gave an example of your claim being inaccurate, you said that was unacceptable as it was about great men. But nobody wrote about what the common man thought, so my argument is based on available evidence, as scant as that may be, and yours is based on...nobody knows, you seem to have made it up.

[Elegiac]

Your argument has no substance.

You made a claim about what people thought a millenia ago, then when I gave an example of your claim being inaccurate, you said that was unacceptable as it was about great men. But nobody wrote about what the common man thought, so my argument is based on available evidence, as scant as that may be, and yours is based on...nobody knows, you seem to have made it up.

It is entirely possible to infer a general cultural outlook (however problematic) by analysing a wide variety of sources; looking at the opinions of a singular individual is vastly more problematic, especially when you're making claims about how Islam was regarded by 'the East'. You might was well claim that John Palaiologos' attempts at reunion in Florence reflected a general feeling that the Schism was nullified. Moreover what Hellenic sources we do have do -not- frame it as a Holy War, but rather a contest of barbarians versus civilisation in the same sense you would have found in Classical times.

And it was not my claim to start with, but the nationalists in here banging on about how Islam is the 'villain' in this piece and not just an opportunistic polity. The 'Islam' part of it is pretty much incidental.

[Chrysia]

They were a large reason it was a corpse of an empire, which is what I said.

Did you even read what I wrote? The Byzantine Empire was a corpse 38 years before the Ottoman empire even existed.

[Elegiac]

Did you even read what I wrote? The Byzantine Empire was a corpse 38 years before the Ottoman empire even existed.

This. 1204 was the point of no return.

[Deleted]

When they hold the Olympics in Istanbul, perhaps you can win a gold medal in mental gymnastics. Under what kind of ideological framework are your views consistent with the actual trends and forces which shape history? You are nothing but a revisionist, because there is no country, people, or civilization which has suffered for any length of time, whereupon gaining independence, looks back favorably on their oppressors. I don't even need to do much work to paint the Ottoman Turks as evil, because they conquered my country, killed my people, and enslaved the survivors for four hundred years. I don't even need to delegitimize the Ottoman rule of Greece because they are foreign invaders and have no claim on Grecian clay; much less Anatolian clay. To the victors go the spoils and the conquered tend to assimilate into the fold of their conquerors, but last I checked, the Greeks are still around, and we fought a bloody war of independence to regain our freedom from Ottoman oppression. This is because freedom matters to Greeks, and if anyone is going to fuck up our own country, it's going to be us. Call me a nationalist again, I'll wear that label with pride. You stand for nothing.



Redecorating the Agia Sophia doesn't count as an architectural masterpiece. And if nobody remembers or follows your contributions to humanity, they aren't significant.

History isn't about good or evil, though, it's about power. Basically any single Balkan country has been fucked to some degree or another by its neighbours. Comes with being some of the oldest countries in history.

Nobody says anything about looking favourably on the Ottoman Empire, they were the cunt of the day in the region for five centuries - which is what any empire would've been.

What I personally find really interesting is the religious lens this is being looked through, especially considering the history of religion in the region. There was the Western Christianity and the Crusades stirring shit up where they don't belong in the 12th and 13th century, The Ottoman invasion, etc. Then there was the Orthodox Church, held by Greeks who held to the power given by their control of the church onto dear life. And regarding having claim on any clay - the only claim you had in those days was military power. Any territory in the Balkan Peninsula has been owned by at least two countries over a large period of time.

I honestly can't understand people holding grudges about stuff happening hundreds of years ago - none of that shit affects you, and you can't change it. Constantinople, or Istanbul, is one of the most important cities of the world because of how many people and empires had held it. It was the world's most important city until it was dethroned by London in the 19th century, and then by New York (I guess?) in the 20th.

Redecorating the Agia Sophia doesn't count as an architectural masterpiece. And if nobody remembers or follows your contributions to humanity, they aren't significant.

I personally find the story of the Hagia Sophia's six minarets historically interesting, and thus have I remembered it. Same with the Sea Gates of Constantinople, or its walls.

And are you trying to claim Ancient Greece's historic achievements for modern day Greece? It's okay to be proud of them originating on your lands, but if your most notable architectural, technological and cultural achievements are more than two millennia old, you might be resting on some mighty moldy laurels there.

[Moxal]

Friendly advice: don't say that to Greek people.

Yes, you are off topic.
This thread is about the historical city, not about the current one.

When you're an idiot and not aware.

Oh come on people. Someone linked the song/music video I was referring right below me. Sigh.

[I Push Buttons]

And by that metric Christianity and its empires were a threat to the whole existence of the Islamic world.

Lol what?

European empires never tried to destroy Islam... Conversely the Islamic Caliphates repeatedly tried to conquer all of Europe for a fucking thousand years...

[Holofernes]

The empire fell because it was surrounded from all sides by enemies, and the very few allies it had were unstable at best and also enemies at worst. It had its good share of internal conflicts as well. It's a miracle it survived for as long as it did. The Roman/Greek blood was already running very thin in Anatolia when Bizantium lost control of it once and for all. Turks didn't have to do any ethnic cleansing there, since the area was already half Turkish by the time they took over for good. Greeks didn't suffer that much under Ottomans after 1453.

greeks didnt suffer that much under ottomans after 1453. OK are u fucking serious? thats the most stupid thing to ever say, and hopefully u dont have any greek or cypric friends how hear u say that. They stole the male children. They hunted for slaves. They slized up prengant women and ripped the unborn child out of their dead mothers, and planted the babies on lances for fun as we nowadays plant trees alongside streets. The turkish history is full of cruel genocide and supression, and terrorism against the greek and balkan nations, especially against the christian population.

you know why in europe the renaissance happened? because all the clever people and artists from byzanz that survived its fall fled to italy.

[Deleted]

Same as if you asked what happened to Berlin, Vienna or London. Same answer.

Off-topic: Istanbul (not Constantinople).

Edit: See the song below me. This was meant in jest.

He asked about, you know, actual historical, Christian place, not that pseudo-city full of ridiculous towers with terrorist attacks every few days.

- - - Updated - - -

And by that metric Christianity and its empires were a threat to the whole existence of the Islamic world.

What a load of shit. Wouldn't expect anything different from you.
Islam conquered Christian world. The whole Middle East was Christian. Even Crusades can be excused because they were basically defensive wars. They were trying to reclaim something that was their before and save their people from slavery.

[Ravenblade]

Ottomans happened but that is only the short answer. Truth is that by standards the Byzantine Empire was already just as husk not the least since the Latins sacked and heavily plundered the city with guidance of an old shrewd man named Enrico Dandolo which in the end left less inhabitants than a major town would have today which wasn't enough to keep the city functional and running. A lot buildings and places decayed, anarchy and corruption was common, and trade declined which was just representative for the rest of the Empire which disintegrated into many smaller kingdoms. When it was reconquered it never really could fully restore itself to the old glory or even surpass it.
However it is unlikely that without the Latins the city wouldn't have been sacked eventually anyway, by their approach and methods the Ottomans simply were a lot less restrained by factors like traditions, lineages, schemes and bureaucracy, they learned from everyone on the way and took the best of it and molded it into what eventually culminated into a force that eventually could isolate and starve out the city.

The truth is: The Byzantines were already, long before the sack, weakened by massive territorial losses and losses of authority which caused a chronic inability to defend their territories effectively which made them rely on foreign powers and forces to intervene on their behalf and by that extent have a political say in all things Byzantine which caused major rifts between several factions within the empire as their factions became puppets of several major Western powers (including Venice, by the way). This caused a development in which the empire was more focused on staying relevant and in power than on anything else that could spur some progressive development but remained stagnant due to this including the development of military technologies. What little strengths they left had they could never really make use of when in a defensive position.

By the way, the old Constantinople as it has been is basically wholly contained in the Fatih district of Istanbul today.

[Airlick]

greeks didnt suffer that much under ottomans after 1453. OK are u fucking serious? thats the most stupid thing to ever say, and hopefully u dont have any greek or cypric friends how hear u say that. They stole the male children. They hunted for slaves. They slized up prengant women and ripped the unborn child out of their dead mothers, and planted the babies on lances for fun as we nowadays plant trees alongside streets. The turkish history is full of cruel genocide and supression, and terrorism against the greek and balkan nations, especially against the christian population.

you know why in europe the renaissance happened? because all the clever people and artists from byzanz that survived its fall fled to italy.

So how come Greeks were able to become the wealthiest merchants (and, frankly, government officials) in the Ottoman Empire? How come Ottomans didn't abolish the Church? I am one for removing kebab, but I don't support falsifying history.

I guess you're not even aware when renaissance actually started. Some well-informed scholars argue it actually started in Italy after 1204, when the crusaders - or rather, Venetians - started moving stolen byzantine books and pieces of art west. Even if it started later, there is absolutely no doubt that it happened because of the 4th Crusade, not because of Ottomans.

[Zeta333]

Off-topic: Istanbul (not Constantinople).

Edit: See the song below me. This was meant in jest.

you can call it by its old name, i still call st petersburg leningrad.

[Slant]

you can call it by its old name, i still call st petersburg leningrad.

St. Petersburg is the old name... at least do it right, man.