Nicolo Barbaro

It is imperative to maintain critical thought whilst analyzing primary documentation to detect both the explicit and implicit objective involved with the document (inaccurate depictions of occurrences to augment public opinion, exemplified with the falsified Donation of Constantine ), relying upon anterior occurrences related to the existence of the author in both affiliation and contemporary events; whilst it is historically accepted that the Ottoman Empire plundered (an orthodox procedure for the chronological period) Constantinople upon its acquisition, the severity and validity of accounts is indefinite. In an attempt to remove the potential obfuscation related to this event, various sources shall be utilized and bias identified. The sources …show more content…
Nicolo Barbaro records the interactions between the inhabitants of Constantinople and ‘Turks’ on the twenty-fourth page (the prior twenty-three depicting both the siege and lamentation of citizenry); the author maintains a relatively objective usage of adjectival descriptions, refraining from the emotionally and religiously amplified approach of Thomas the Eparch and Joshua Diplovatatzes, and attempts to convey the event with accuracy. Contained within the pertinent sections of the document are depictions of the ‘Turks’ who “sought out the monasteries, and all the nuns were led to the fleet and ravished and abused by the Turks, and then sold at auction for slaves throughout Turkey, and all the young women were ravished and then sold…” and attempts to construct a visualization of Constantinople posterior to the Ottoman pillage with “all through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians … blood flowed in the city like rainwater in the gutters after a sudden storm…" These descriptions could potentially be construed as excessive and dramatized (comparable to accounts of the