The Destruction of the Greek Empire and the Story of the Capture of Constantinople by the TurksPears, Edwin
History
The Destruction of the Greek Empire and the Story of the Capture of Constantinople by the Turks
Pears, Edwin
Byzantine Empire -- History -- 1081-1453; Istanbul (Turkey) -- History -- Siege, 1453
individually as greatly inferior to the soldiers of Western states. His
estimate of the inferiority of the Turk was shared by his countrymen
and Western statesmen generally,[162] but they did not recognise to the
same extent as he did how great and ever increasing was the host which
had to be fought. Nor did they recognise, as did he, the wonderful
mobility of the Turkish army. It was the same error of forgetting
their mobility which brought disaster upon Hunyadi at Varna and at
Cossovo-pol.
While the first mistake was in underrating the might of the enemy in
regard to numbers, warlike spirit, and mobility, the Western powers
blundered also in dividing their forces. The sermon before the pope
already referred to, on New Year’s Day 1452, called for international
concerted action to defend Constantinople, Cyprus, and Rhodes. The
mistake was in trying to do too much. On many occasions, as we have
seen, the forces sent against the Turk were divided, and an army which
might have been sufficiently strong to strike an effective blow against
one of the Turkish divisions was defeated in detail when split into two
or three, to be sent against Saracens, or to the aid of the military
knights, as well as against the Turks.
The one chance of safety for Constantinople now lay in the inhabitants
themselves, with such forces as, at the instigation of the pope,
should be sent to the aid of the emperor. But to add to the chagrin
and difficulties of the aged John at seeing the Christian armies
defeated, he had once more formally to promise the sultan that he
would not assist any of the enterprises set on foot from the West.
Nor did the influence of the disasters upon the emperor and people of
Constantinople stop here. A formidable party in the city, headed by the
bishop of Ephesus, which was opposed to the Union, and which strongly
resented the proceedings at the Council of Florence, was greatly
strengthened. Its members pointed to the victories of Murad, and asked,
with scorn, what had been gained by the abandonment of their faith.
They knew that they had the support of Murad in their opposition to
the Unionists, and the fact that they were not forcibly suppressed by
the Court party during the reign of John’s successor can probably be
best accounted for on the ground that any strong steps taken against
their members would be represented to the sultan as a violation of the
engagement to have no further intrigues with the West.
[Sidenote: Death of John, October 1448.]
The disaster of Cossovo-pol hastened the death of John, which took
place on the last day of October 1448, within a few days after he had
heard the news.[163]
[Sidenote: Of Murad, February 1451.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account