The Siege and Fall of Constantinople

Discussions on other historical eras.
domdiego
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 04:15
Location: Portugal

#16

Post by domdiego » 27 May 2005, 21:04

And the result was the Battle of the Three Kings in 1578, the whole Portugal amry was destroyed.
Wrong again. As we are speaking of XVth Century (The fall of Constantinople), the result was the conquest of Ceuta, Tanger and Arzila for instance.

mars
Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 20:50
Location: Shanghai

#17

Post by mars » 27 May 2005, 21:33

domdiego, what do you mean ? I am talking about the war between Portugal and Morocco, refering to " By the 15th century Portugal did bring war on muslim territory (Morocco)" in your last post, should be 16th century by the way, and the result of this war was the so call battle of three kings, in which 3 kings died (King Sebastian of Portugal and the deposed Morocco Sultan were killed in the battle, Sultan Abd El Malik died by illness at the eve of the battle.


domdiego
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 04:15
Location: Portugal

#18

Post by domdiego » 27 May 2005, 21:59

I think the sentence i quoted is self explanatory. What was in discussion was the possibility of Byzantium getting help from someone, and was said that portugal and spain (a country that did not existed then) were busy with their own problems. As of the kingdom that would become spain (castilla) that was true, but not for portugal, wich was alive and well, and doing very good thank you.
This is what i corrected, but let me be more precise and say that even if byzantium had asked for help, portugal probably wouldn't help then because we had other priorities. As far as mid XVth century the axis of interests moved from morocco to many miles south, the african coast.
And before someone started saying that wouldn't make much diference, let me say that the Portuguese Indian fleet simply obliterated the turkish fleet in the indian ocean by the beggining of the XVIth century.

Cheers.

PS: Now that i've re-read your post i think that you are making some confusion.

Check the net for confirmation if you want, but portugal conquered ceuta in Morocco, in 1415 (that's XVth century), by 1471 Alcácer Ceguer, Arzila, Tânger, Azamor, Safim, Mazagão were also part of the portuguese crown.

mars
Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 20:50
Location: Shanghai

#19

Post by mars » 27 May 2005, 22:26

domdiego, do you know anything about the battle of the three kings ?

domdiego
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 04:15
Location: Portugal

#20

Post by domdiego » 27 May 2005, 22:33

Mars... Please spare me, i know more about alcacer quibir (that's how it called in portugal) then you. But that battle was in 1578 - XVI century. We are talking about XV century.

"...should be 16th century by the way"
No it shouldn't. Do a simple search on the net. See wich dates appears on the conquest of ceuta, or tanger or arzila.
Inform yoursself and don't talk rubish.

Take an example.

"The Portuguese under King John I captured Ceuta (1415)."

In this link: http://www.geocities.com/eurprin/portugal.html

And do a search for the others towns asswell.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#21

Post by Victor » 27 May 2005, 22:46

domdiego, drop the aggressive tone. Let's get back to the Fall of Constantinople.

domdiego
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 04:15
Location: Portugal

#22

Post by domdiego » 27 May 2005, 22:51

Sorry about that Victor, but someone trying to correct a thing wich is taught at the 4th grade (or it was in my time) really gets on my nerves. Sorry Mars, sorry anyone that might felt unease with my posts.

Peter Lyderik
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 23 Dec 2004, 17:27
Location: Finland

#23

Post by Peter Lyderik » 04 Jun 2005, 07:43

In David Nicolle's Osprey book about Constantinople he writes that only 4000 of the population was killed during the siege and the fall of the city. Is that number correct?

And did the Ottoman army have 3 days of fun with raping, killing and plundering, as some books/sources say, or was it stopped by Mehmed after one day, as again other books/sources say?

User avatar
ckleisch
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 01 Mar 2003, 09:03
Location: Elizabeth City, NC USA

#24

Post by ckleisch » 04 Jun 2005, 19:34

The sack of the city actually lasted only pne day. By late afternoon the troops were sated and the military police persuaded them to return to camp. the next day Mohammed ordered all the booty to be displayed before him. he selected his share and also assigned fair portions to the troops whose duties had prevented them from joining the pillage. Mohammed included in his share many of the cities officials and members of their families. he freed the ladies and even gave some of them money so that they could ransom their husbands and children. The priest daughters and the hansome sons he reervered for himself. Mohammed reportly sent three lots of four hundred youthful slaves to the Muslim rulers of egypt, Tunis and granada. Some genoan and Venetian leaders he ordered executed. after, a three day official period for "pillage" different I guess from a "sack", Mohammed proclaimed an amnesty for any survivors. There were a number of areas of the city that had noit been sacked at all. The city at this time was a depopulated shell of its former self. Even in the principla parts of the city there were many palaces and public buildings that long had been abandoned. The city was actually a collection of neighborhoods seperated from each other by orchardss and pastures. the neighborhoods that surrendered voluntarily to the sultans troops had been given military police guards and were left untouched. Mohammed has also placed under his protection the cities largest catheral of the Holy Apostles. It survived with its treasury intact. during, the days that followed the inhabitants of the fortunate neighborhoods were able to buy back some of their relatives and friends.. Very soon Mohammed began to restore the city as he was appalled by the damages inflicted by the seige. he rebuilt the walls and "encouraged" Turks from all domains to settle in the city. he allowed the greeks who remained to form their own self governing communities, allowed them to practise their religion unmolested in desiganted churches. He also uprooted 5,000 greeks from Trebizond and forced them to settle in the city. he granted the genoses the trade concession they sought. In time Mohammed built a palace in the city and established the city as the new capital for the ottomans. the city quickly grew into a metropolis of greeks, turks, italians, jews and armenians a thriving center of trade, toleration and peace.

User avatar
ckleisch
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 01 Mar 2003, 09:03
Location: Elizabeth City, NC USA

#25

Post by ckleisch » 04 Jun 2005, 20:14

First I want to apologize as it appears my typing and spelling are not keeping up with each other ie proof read.

In the seige the most dramatic difference was the additive of a technological acheivement in cannon design. in the past ineefective and little more than a distraction.
It appears a Catholic born Hungarian known as an engineer and briillant mind was involved in this attack. named, Urban he had opriginally offered his services to Constantinople. His services were refused because the money wasnt there to do it. The oarty thwent to the Ottomans and offered his services there. Mohammed was impressed and paid the man 4 times his original request for a salary. The results were the developement of 14 batterys of cannon with 4 guns each. The biggest is the one of concern here. Called 'THE Basilic" it took 30 wagons, 600 oxen and 400 men to move and attend the gun. Sources agree it was made out of Bronze. Its length was 27 feet long. Its bore was twenty four inches wide. To fire it required 134 lbs of powder to operate. It could fire a 1200lb (544kg) stone ball one mile. Firing rate was 7 times per day. using, this weapon it was fired for 1 week of bombardment. That was 49 shots with a 1200lb ball to destroy the walls first at the Blachernal and later at the Mestoteichion to gain the access neeed to blast the walls down. That was an accomplishment and marvel gret in itd day.

Does anyone have a pic of this gun? I have none in my records.

User avatar
ckleisch
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 01 Mar 2003, 09:03
Location: Elizabeth City, NC USA

#26

Post by ckleisch » 06 Jun 2005, 20:45

I am preparing the text for the battle on land, water and the seige for inclusion in the site. As few people have had input I was wondering if what was developed was of interest to the readers and whether they had anything they would like developed in the area question wise???? Lets here from somebody.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#27

Post by Victor » 06 Jun 2005, 21:06

Yes, please continue. The last siege of Constantinople has interested me ever since I read a semi-fictional book about it some many years ago.
Last edited by Victor on 07 Jun 2005, 07:29, edited 1 time in total.

dragos03
Member
Posts: 422
Joined: 24 Jan 2004, 21:29
Location: Bucuresti

#28

Post by dragos03 » 07 Jun 2005, 02:11

I was also fascinated by the same book (Vintila Horia?). Please continue.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#29

Post by Victor » 07 Jun 2005, 08:36

ckleisch wrote: Does anyone have a pic of this gun? I have none in my records.
Here is one made by Radu Oltean in the book De la Vlad Tepes la Dracula Vampirul. You can check out more of his excellent illustrations on http://www.historyarts.ro
Attachments
siege_const.jpg
siege_const.jpg (37.55 KiB) Viewed 1653 times

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 03:55
Location: S. E. Asia

#30

Post by Karl » 07 Jun 2005, 09:53

I'm reading too.

By all means, please continue.

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”