Constantinople: for centuries the city served as a symbol for both the imperial might of the East Roman Empire and as a major center for Orthodox Christianity. The conquest of the city by the Ottoman Muslims in 1453 signaled an era of Muslim supremacy in the Balkan and Greek lands and the subsequent decline of Christianity in its hinterlands. As with any cataclysmic event in history, the fall of Constantinople and the consequences that followed are documented and presented differently in “The Tribute of Children,” “The Conquest of Constantinople,” and “The Liberation of Constantinople.” Through these texts, one discovers both similar and conflicting accounts of the nature of the Ottoman’s conquest, expectations and norms for late medieval warfare,
…show more content…
In “Conquest”, the author shudders when describing the sacking of the city, stating that, "Nothing will ever equal the horror of this harrowing and terrible spectacle,” describing the atrocities committed against “captive men, women, children, old men, young men, monks, priests, people of all sorts and conditions.” So horrible was the devastation wrought by the invaders that even the sultan’s “soul was full of sorrow.” Nonetheless, the spoils of war are put to the sultan’s use, as seen in “Tribute.” After the sultan’s vizier convinces him that he has a “right not only to one-fifth of the spoils of battle, but also to one-fifth of the captives,” talented Christian boys are taken from conquered villages to form the Janissaries, the infamous “haughty troops” of the Ottoman Empire and the “terror of the nations.” Taking a radically different perspective, “Liberation” flips the narrative that the Ottoman’s are barbarous invaders. Instead, the pious Muslims “compete with pounding hearts to liberate [Constantinople] so that they can achieve the honour . . . which Allah has blessed them with at the tongue of His messenger.” To the Ottoman’s, their attempts to conquer the city of Constantinople are not for the purposes of pillage and rape, but rather to open “the doors of Europe for the call of Islam.” These conflicting accounts arise from the perspective of the …show more content…
“Liberation” in particular outlines his role when it describes him spending long hours “studying the plans of [Constantinople], looking for strategic points of defense and attempting to find weak points which he could benefit from and to work on the appropriate plan to attack these points.” His spiritual role is emphasized when the text says that the sultan “stood and spoke to his soldiers taking example from the messenger of Allah . . . saying: "my sons, here I am ready for death in the path of Allah, so whoever desires martyrdom, let him follow me,” resulting in the final Muslim advance on the city “like the flood from the dam tearing down.” Deviating from the sultan’s instrumental role in leading his men, “Conquest” cites the sultan’s reaction when he “saw the ravages, the destruction and the deserted houses and all that had perished and become ruins” stating that “then a great sadness took possession of him and he repented the pillage and all the destruction.” This portrayal depicts the sultan as an unwitting leader of barbarous men who destroyed the godly
In “Conquest”, the author shudders when describing the sacking of the city, stating that, "Nothing will ever equal the horror of this harrowing and terrible spectacle,” describing the atrocities committed against “captive men, women, children, old men, young men, monks, priests, people of all sorts and conditions.” So horrible was the devastation wrought by the invaders that even the sultan’s “soul was full of sorrow.” Nonetheless, the spoils of war are put to the sultan’s use, as seen in “Tribute.” After the sultan’s vizier convinces him that he has a “right not only to one-fifth of the spoils of battle, but also to one-fifth of the captives,” talented Christian boys are taken from conquered villages to form the Janissaries, the infamous “haughty troops” of the Ottoman Empire and the “terror of the nations.” Taking a radically different perspective, “Liberation” flips the narrative that the Ottoman’s are barbarous invaders. Instead, the pious Muslims “compete with pounding hearts to liberate [Constantinople] so that they can achieve the honour . . . which Allah has blessed them with at the tongue of His messenger.” To the Ottoman’s, their attempts to conquer the city of Constantinople are not for the purposes of pillage and rape, but rather to open “the doors of Europe for the call of Islam.” These conflicting accounts arise from the perspective of the …show more content…
“Liberation” in particular outlines his role when it describes him spending long hours “studying the plans of [Constantinople], looking for strategic points of defense and attempting to find weak points which he could benefit from and to work on the appropriate plan to attack these points.” His spiritual role is emphasized when the text says that the sultan “stood and spoke to his soldiers taking example from the messenger of Allah . . . saying: "my sons, here I am ready for death in the path of Allah, so whoever desires martyrdom, let him follow me,” resulting in the final Muslim advance on the city “like the flood from the dam tearing down.” Deviating from the sultan’s instrumental role in leading his men, “Conquest” cites the sultan’s reaction when he “saw the ravages, the destruction and the deserted houses and all that had perished and become ruins” stating that “then a great sadness took possession of him and he repented the pillage and all the destruction.” This portrayal depicts the sultan as an unwitting leader of barbarous men who destroyed the godly