1453: The Conquest and Tragedy of Constantinople

 This is Anthony Kaldellis's new look at the Siege of Constantinople. I thought I had this subject well covered, but, like the author, I realised that my copy of Sir Steven Runciman's book dates back to 1965 and doesn't cover much about the siege itself.

The basic story is well known and has become the defining date of the end of the Middle Ages, at least for those of us focusing on Eastern Europe. The 1453 siege of Constantinople began on 6 April when the forces of the Ottoman Empire, led by Mehmed II, surrounded the city, the capital of the Byzantine (or Roman) Empire. Defended by approximately 7,000–8,000 soldiers under Constantine XI Palaiologos, the city withstood relentless artillery bombardment, including attacks from massive cannons designed to breach its formidable land walls. The Ottomans also bypassed the defensive chain across the Golden Horn by transporting ships overland, allowing them to pressure the city from multiple directions. After nearly two months of continuous assaults, mining operations, and bombardment, the Ottomans launched a final coordinated attack on 29 May. Exhausted defenders were overwhelmed after a breach near the Gate of St. Romanus, and Constantine XI was killed while fighting. The city's capture marked the end of Byzantine resistance and secured Ottoman control of Constantinople.

The ruined walls today, on one of my visits

The key point of this new book is that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was not inevitable, as most people think. This common perception suited both the West, which failed to save the City and the East, which wanted to start a new period.

The Romans (Byzantines) actually believed they could hold out, and Kaldellis argues that they could have. They were successful in resisting a wide range of methods that Mehmed used to besiege the city, including large cannons, the portage into the harbour, and mining. In the end, it took a massive infantry attack through the partial breach to get in, and then, probably, because of the Genoese commander Giustiniani's wounding. Much of the blame was placed on him because he escaped, only to die on Chios weeks later. However, we know little about what actually happened, and without him and his armoured defenders, the walls would certainly have fallen earlier. We should remember that there was no help from Byzantine territories in the Peloponese, or elsewhere in the Balkans. In fact, it was Serbian miners who worked for the Ottomans.

Much of the story of the breach was told by Italian sources that virtually ignore the role of the Romans, few of whom escaped. The City's population was not large, and certainly not big enough to properly defend six kilometres of wall, but they still outnumbered the Italians, mainly Genoese and Venetians. The total defence was about 9,000 men. There were also around 27 ships in the harbour, with an iron chain guarding the entrance, although the one in the Archaeological Museum is probably from Rhodes.

As for the attackers, there may have been this huge gun, but it is much more likely that there were several, and they were not something new. They also fired stone shot rather than the iron balls being used in Western Europe. The Ottoman army was large, but not nearly as big as usually claimed. Probably no greater than around 50,000, and 145 ships. The ships were also too small to take on the larger Genoese ships that managed to get into the harbour with modest relief forces.

After the Ottomans broke into the City, it didn't take long to capture the city and round up the captives, mostly for safety. Probably no longer than three hours. Certainly shorter than when the 'Crusaders' broke in during 1204. There was a debate within the Ottoman system over whether to elevate it to a centralised administrative capital. They are usually identified with the semi-independent frontier warlords who had a looser conception of the Ottoman expansion project. They loved the idea that Hagia Sophia had been turned into a mosque and that Muslim dreams were realised, but they hated the City. Constantinople changed the Ottomans as much as they changed it. It catalysed and accelerated their conversion from nomadic warriors expanding the frontiers of Islam to a centralised state with a sedentary capital. Mehmed also decided to run the city himself, rather than have a Roman official do it.

This is an excellent take on the siege, with lots of details that debunk, or at least challenge, much of what we are usually told. Highly recommended.

This is from the diorama inside the museum of the siege in modern Istanbul. A bit touristy, but worth a look.

Another take from the Harbiye Museum.

And this fine model from the Hisart Museum.