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
The conquest of Constantinople had but little effect on the mass of the
Turkish population. The Turks ceased to be mainly a nomadic people,
and great numbers of them took possession of the arable lands of the
conquered races. But in other respects their habits and characteristics
remained unchanged. They had and have their virtues. They are brave and
hardy, and, except when under the influence of religious fanaticism,
are hospitable and kindly. Their religion inculcates cleanliness
and sobriety. While its teaching must stand condemned in regard to
the treatment of non-Islamic peoples and, judging by the universal
experience of Moslem countries, in regard to the position, fatal to
all progress, which it assigns to woman, it has nevertheless helped
to diffuse courtesy and self-respect among its adherents. Unhappily,
the Turkish race has never had sufficient continuous energy to be
industrious nor enough intelligence to desire knowledge.
Fortunately for the populations under the rule of the Turk, his
religious intolerance has only become virulent at intervals; for
when his fanaticism is awakened, corruption and cruelty in the
administration of government show themselves at their worst. It is so
in Morocco now, where the fiercest Moslem intolerance and perhaps the
most cruel and corrupt government in the world co-exist. It has been so
at various periods under Turkish rule. Sultans have alternated in their
government between periods of lethargy, sloth, and sensuality and those
of spasmodic activity. But the periods of fanaticism have been those
not only of massacre and exceptional cruelty but of want of patriotism,
and the worst corruption in the administration of government.
In Greece and Italy more vigorous physical races in earlier times
had triumphed over peoples further advanced in civilisation. But the
conquerors profited by the civilisation of the vanquished and the
latter became more virile. The two races coalesced and formed a united
people. No such results followed 1453. The Turkish nation was unable to
assimilate the civilisation of the peoples it subdued, and its work has
been simply to destroy what it could not take to itself. It has fallen
so far short of reconciling the conquered races and welding them to
itself so as to form one people that the assertion may safely be made
that every century since 1453 has widened the gulf between it and the
Christians.
In one respect only has the Turk been able to appreciate the progress
made by his neighbours and, in part at least, to appropriate their
development--namely, in the art of war. He knows and cares nothing
about art, science, or literature. He has made a miserable failure of
government. His civil administration is probably more corrupt than it
was four centuries ago. He admits that, since his defeat at Lepanto in
1571, Allah has given the dominion of the seas to the Giaours. But as a
soldier he has always been ready to learn from European nations.
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