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
Nature had endowed him with intelligence far above the average of
that possessed by men of his race. He was the son of a slave, and
probably of a Christian, and like so many of the sultans before his
time and until the middle of the eighteenth century probably owed his
intelligence to the non-Turkish blood in his veins. His early struggles
while yet a lad, and the great responsibilities he had to assume in
order to protect his very life, had quickened his faculties and had
made him both suspicious and self-reliant. His environment, among men
who were simply soldiers of the original Turkish type; the tradition
of his house and race, in accordance with which any slaughter or any
cruelties might be committed; the religion to which he belonged, which
regarded all non-Mussulmans as enemies of the true faith, who were
to be subdued: all tended to make him regardless of human life. But
amid his cruelties his better nature and his more thoughtful side
occasionally asserted itself.
In one respect his characteristics are those of his race. No man can
show himself more cruel and relentless in slaughter than the Turk
whenever his religious sentiment comes into play. The unbeliever is
an enemy of God and of Mahomet, and it is a sacred duty when he is
fighting against the Moslem to slay him. Those who are at war against
Islam must be utterly destroyed, root and branch, unless indeed they
will accept the faith. Men, women, and children must alike suffer the
penalty. But when no religious sentiment obscures the natural feelings
of humanity, the same Turk is goodnatured and kindly. Probably no race
is more charitable towards its own poor or treats animals with more
kindness. Mahomet the Second both in his cruelty towards his enemies
and in his spasmodic kindness was a not unfair representative of his
race.
But in another respect the characteristics of Mahomet are quite
un-Turk-like. His interest in questions of philosophy and theology, in
science and even in art, recall the names of Western rather than of
Turkish rulers. It was indeed his interest in theological questions
that led to various reports that he was an atheist,[191] that he was an
unbeliever in the dogmas of his own religion and that he contemplated
embracing Christianity. That he felt an interest in such questions
separates him at once from the mass of his race: for, probably more
completely than the professors of any other religion, Moslems accept
their creed without question.[192]
Phrantzes notes that when as a mere boy he had been entrusted with
kingly power, some of the old viziers had warned Sultan Murad that it
was not prudent to leave the government to his son.[193] Their warning
was not altogether disregarded, and the viziers who gave it paid dearly
for their counsels.
[Sidenote: Mahomet’s accession.]
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