Introduction
By the turn of the millennium, the Eastern Empire was at its height. The start of the so-called Golden Era, which lasted from 867 to 1025, came with the succession to the throne of Basil I, who had assassinated Emperor Michael III. This period did not last very long for Byzantium — about 200 years. Among the dates that determined the course of world history, there is one that is often forgotten – May 29, 1453. On this date, the Turkish Sultan Mehmed II’s forces sacked Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire. This ended the thousand-year history of the great power, the direct heir of Ancient Rome.
Time of Fall in Byzantium
Throughout the Crusades, the Byzantine Empire faced challenging circumstances. The Crusaders had already taken Constantinople once in 1204, but the Byzantines soon succeeded in liberating their capital. Supported by the forces of Christian Europe, it has been a springboard of Christianity for several centuries. Byzantium, however, was reduced to a mere shadow of its former splendour by the Fifteenth century. Parts of the capital’s intact wall are all that is left of the once-grand Byzantium (Reeh 479). A plan to obtain Western assistance in exchange for a church unity, which was agreed to in Florence in 1439, was unsuccessful. No longer able to rely on outside assistance, the Empire was left with just its own feeble forces.
Constantine XI, the last emperor of the empire, came to power in 1448. He realized the gravity of the situation after assuming the Byzantine throne. Ottoman holdings virtually encircled Byzantium (Kukjalko 293). The Byzantine issue was something that the newly elected Sultan Mehmed II wanted to put to rest. By his direction, work on the Rumeli Hisary stronghold on the Bosphorus’ European shore began in 1452.
Turkish Army
Mehmed II’s father, Murad II (1421-1451), had already attempted to take the city. After an unsuccessful siege in 1422, he had to retreat before the onslaught of mercenaries trained in military affairs with the money of the Byzantine emperor Manuel Palaeologus as died in 1425, but he was still forced to pay tribute to the Turks. The threat hanging over Constantinople is becoming very real, and Christians in the West are very concerned.
Pope Eugene IV is trying to organize a crusade to help the Byzantines after they joined Roman Catholicism during the Council of Bale in 1439 (Aretov 687). However, the troops, united around the papal legate and the King of Hungary, were defeated in Varna on November 10, 1444. Once again, the Byzantines were left without help in the face of the danger coming from the Turks.
The Turks have limited naval forces. Therefore, an attack should be expected from the land. The Ottomans under Mehmed II were introduced to the superb Greek defenses and fortifications of Constantinople through the loss of 1422. (Armstrong 26). To overcome the mighty fortress walls, the sultan supplies his soldiers with powerful artillery. On April 7, the Turks started the siege of the city in an effort to breach the castle walls and launch an attack. They then deployed artillery and shelled the walls.
Taking & Losing Constantinople
Sultan Mehmed II launched the siege of Constantinople in 1453 at the helm of naval and land forces. Under Sultan Mehmed Fatih’s leadership, an 80,000-person contingent of the Ottoman army engages in combat. According to numerous witnesses, the number of defenders was extremely low and did not reach 8,000, of which 2,000 to 3,000 were Italians and other foreigners (Armstrong 24). Moreover, Mehmed II’s army possessed more than 160 thousand regular soldiers and a huge artillery that was constantly breaching defenses with unheard-of strength. Mehmed earned the distinction of creating a brand-new long-range mortar ball in this siege fight, claims Byzantine historian Kritovoulos.
In a tiny rural area, the Byzantine army commanded by Emperor Constantine was encircled. Emperor Constantine XI afterwards died in combat. Fighting took place on land, at sea, and even underground when the Turks made their way into the sewage tunnels during the nearly two-month long siege of Constantinople. After 53 days, the city was conquered by the Turks (Aretov 690).
The capital of the empire was plundered and devastated. Several valuable pieces of art were destroyed. Many people were either killed or sold into slavery. The conquered city, which served as the Ottoman Empire’s capital, was entered by the victorious Sultan. The Sultan rode into the Hagia Sophia, which commemorated the reign of Emperor Justinian the Great, as proof of his might. A mosque was built inside the temple. Constantinople’s millennium-long empire has irreparably crumbled, and Istanbul has grown up on its ruins.
At the same time, the Turks seized control of the eastern Mediterranean basin and launched an invasion of Europe, which John III Sobieski was able to halt in 1683 at Vienna. The fall of Constantinople had a profound impact on people in the time it occurred (Reeh 475). Being used to two heads of the imperial Eagle at the time, the awareness of Europe was particularly horrified when one of them was severed.
On May 29, the last assault on Constantinople began early in the morning. The first attacks were repulsed, but then the wounded Giustiniani left the city and fled to Galata. The Turks were able to take the main gate of the capital of Byzantium. The fighting was going on in the streets of the city, Emperor Constantine XI fell in battle, and when the Turks found his wounded body, they cut off his head and hoisted him on a pole. For three days there were looting and violence in Constantinople. The Turks killed in a row everyone they met on the streets: men, women, children. Streams of blood flowed down the steep streets of Constantinople from the hills of Petra into the Golden Horn.
Several reasons led to the fall of the Byzantine Empire. The Ottoman conquests and the appropriation of their territory were one of the key ones. The internal conflicts that had dogged the empire for many centuries were another significant factor. Instead of concentrating on removing the external threat, the emperors decided to engage in conflict with one another. The conflict between grandfather and grandson, which resulted in the deposition of the emperor Andranik II by his own grandson in 1328, is a particularly clear example (Kukjalko 289).
The conflict between John V and John Cantaloupes was the following illustration of a power struggle. The Byzantines’ mistrust of the West was the third factor. All attempts at reconciliation failed since the people of the empire saw the worst of the West after the final crusade. In addition, the economy contributed to the fall. Increased tax pressure on the peasants, who the aristocracy was using more and more.
Conclusion
The fall of Constantinople is seen as a turning point in European history, dividing the Middle Ages from the Renaissance. This is explained by the employment of new military innovations like gunpowder and cannon during the conflict as well as the dissolution of the old religious order. Greek scientists who fled Byzantium restocked educational institutions. From Constantinople to the West came the works of ancient philosophers, scientists, poets and writers, which marked the beginning of the Renaissance. In addition, to find a new sea route, it was necessary to stock up on ships and begin the era of Great Geographical Discoveries.
Works Cited
Aretov, Nikolay. “An Attractive Enemy: The Conquest of Constantinople in Bulgarian Imagery.” Journal: Études Balkaniques, vol. 11, no. 4, 2019, pp. 684–695.
Armstrong, Pamela. “The Earliest Glazed Ceramics in Constantinople: A Regional or International Phenomenon?” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, vol. 29, no. 3, 2020, pp. 24–29.
Kukjalko, Brigita. “The Study of Ancient Greek Texts in Early Ottoman Constantinople”. Byzantina Symmeikta, vol. 30, no. 1, 2020, pp. 283–306.
Reeh, Niels. “Inter-Religious Conflict, Translation, and the Usage of the Early Modern Notion of ‘Religion’ from the Fall of Constantinople to the Westphalian Peace Treaty in 1648.” Journal of Religion in Europe, vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, pp. 475–481.