What do you think?
Rate this book
Pad Carigrada 1453
Počev od otomanskog pohoda na Evropu krajem XIV veka, Ransiman nam, istorijski precizno i istovremeno dirljivo, pripoveda o očajničkim pokušajim poslednjih vizantijskih careva da dobiju pomoć od sve ravnodušnijeg Zapada, o unutrašnjim trvenjima hrišćanskih kraljevina na Balkanu - kako latinskih, tako i pravoslavnih - koja su omogućila otomanskim sultanima da osvajaju jednu po jednu teritoriju, dostižući vrhunac opkoljavanjem i osvajanjem Konstantinopolja, kao i o prilikama u Gradu gradova neposredno pred osvajanje koje su bile samo senka negdašnje slave. Po Ransimanovom mišljenju, Otomani su Konstantinopolju i osvojenim teritorijama udahnuli svež vazduh i dali im novu životnu snagu. Grad je obnovljen, a Grci su opstajali kako su najbolje znali i umeli, do ranog dvadesetog veka. Ransiman smatra i da je manje zlo što su grad osvojili Turci nego da je dopao pod vlast Latina, s obzirom da je Grcima i Slovenima bilo dopušteno da zadrže svoju pravoslavnu veru i kulturu, što bi im papski Zapad silom onemogućio. Pripovedački stil, preciznost i nadasve istorijska analiza učinili su ovo Ransimanovo delo klasičnim.
291 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1965
55 people are currently reading
4289 people want to read
About the author
Steven Runciman
45 books240 followersA King's Scholar at Eton College, he was an exact contemporary and close friend of George Orwell. While there, they both studied French under Aldous Huxley. In 1921 he entered Trinity College, Cambridge as a history scholar and studied under J.B. Bury, becoming, as Runciman later commented, "his first, and only, student." At first the reclusive Bury tried to brush him off; then, when Runciman mentioned that he could read Russian, Bury gave him a stack of Bulgarian articles to edit, and so their relationship began. His work on the Byzantine Empire earned him a fellowship at Trinity in 1927.
After receiving a large inheritance from his grandfather, Runciman resigned his fellowship in 1938 and began travelling widely. From 1942 to 1945 he was Professor of Byzantine Art and History at Istanbul University, in Turkey, where he began the research on the Crusades which would lead to his best known work, the History of the Crusades (three volumes appearing in 1951, 1952, and 1954).
Most of Runciman's historical works deal with Byzantium and her medieval neighbours between Sicily and Syria; one exception is The White Rajahs, published in 1960, which tells the story of Sarawak, an independent nation founded on the northern coast of Borneo in 1841 by the Englishman James Brooke, and ruled by the Brooke family for more than a century.
After receiving a large inheritance from his grandfather, Runciman resigned his fellowship in 1938 and began travelling widely. From 1942 to 1945 he was Professor of Byzantine Art and History at Istanbul University, in Turkey, where he began the research on the Crusades which would lead to his best known work, the History of the Crusades (three volumes appearing in 1951, 1952, and 1954).
Most of Runciman's historical works deal with Byzantium and her medieval neighbours between Sicily and Syria; one exception is The White Rajahs, published in 1960, which tells the story of Sarawak, an independent nation founded on the northern coast of Borneo in 1841 by the Englishman James Brooke, and ruled by the Brooke family for more than a century.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews
April 3, 2017
This is an often harrowing account of the bitter end of the Byzantine empire, that eastward extension of the Roman Imperium. Many at the time, may have thought good riddance. Publicly though this collapse was regarded with outrage but not action. Revisionists may wrong their hands and point to the long war between Islam and the West. There is evidence of a longer war between Mediterranean neighbors, religion just makes it sexier. Constantinople was in a steady decline since Christian crusaders sacked it 250 years before. The Ottomans conversely were progressing, utilizing technology and a mighty military to make enroads across the map. Runciman is an excellent auditor, one who never bends to sentiment or stereotype. Mehmed II was a renaissance badass who spoke a half dozen languages, loved science and poetry but was still sufficiently despotic to impale all his enemies when so peeved. The gallant West--here I jest--argued amongst themselves to zero hour and after a six week siege stormed the city and four thousand fell of the remaining 50k. Many churches were pillaged and then destroyed, others were converted to mosques. So it goes.
December 26, 2008
A beautiful book, and extremely valuable as long as you are aware of its limitations. Runciman believed in the art of turning history into readable narrative--something he does with remarkable skill--and the result is a book that is powerful and engrossing, but which, by necessity, must elide, simplify, and generally stick to a single narrative perspective.
If you are a serious scholar, you already know that Runciman is more of a starting point than the final word, and recent work can tell you a great deal more about material culture, women and the lower classes, the Muslim perspective, and many other things that aren't given a great deal of coverage in Runciman's alpha narrative. (His history of the Crusades is a bit better in this respect).
However, for the layperson (of which I count myself one), this text is the definitive account of this moving, heroic, and earth shakingly significant episode in history. Americans and Western Europeans who think of Christianity as the story of Catholics and Protestants will learn a great deal about the rich history of the Orthodox Church and medieval Greek culture (as opposed to the Latin Middle Ages with which most of us are familiar). The book also can help give you a broader perspective on today's points of conflict between Islam and the Christian world.
If you are a serious scholar, you already know that Runciman is more of a starting point than the final word, and recent work can tell you a great deal more about material culture, women and the lower classes, the Muslim perspective, and many other things that aren't given a great deal of coverage in Runciman's alpha narrative. (His history of the Crusades is a bit better in this respect).
However, for the layperson (of which I count myself one), this text is the definitive account of this moving, heroic, and earth shakingly significant episode in history. Americans and Western Europeans who think of Christianity as the story of Catholics and Protestants will learn a great deal about the rich history of the Orthodox Church and medieval Greek culture (as opposed to the Latin Middle Ages with which most of us are familiar). The book also can help give you a broader perspective on today's points of conflict between Islam and the Christian world.
November 9, 2011
Eclipses anything else I've read on the subject. Beautifully written account of fall of (what was left of) Byzantium, despite gallant defense by Greeks, Italians (and a lone Scot). Heartbreaking. Excellent preface, appendices, notes, bibliography, index, with some interesting plates and drawings.
December 6, 2020
Un buen libro de historia es como una buena novela y, en ocasiones (en muchas), incluso mejor. Antes de El señor de los anillos, antes de Juego de Tronos, todo había sucedido ya. Los dragones, las bestias aladas son, en este caso, cañones gigantescos que necesitaban no sé cuántas yuntas de mulas para desplazarlos de un lado a otro. Aquí veréis hordas de orcos, caballeros andantes, traidores, reyes trágicos, gestas imposibles, épica, muerte y destrucción. Poco queda que aún se pueda inventar, al menos en el terreno de la literatura. Una obra magnífica, una gozada de lectura.
September 12, 2022
That's how you write a history book! It felt like I was reading some greek tragedy(Pun intended). Tragic figures really both John 8 and Constantine 11, did all they could to save their empire and their people but alas they could not tame the Ottoman juggernaut. Constantinople fell and Constantine 11 fell with it, he died in his city with his people like a damn hero.
August 15, 2018
Aeneas Sylvius, in his lament, termed the fall of Constantinople as 'the second death of Homer and of Plato.'
This is such an extraordinary narrative on the dying moments of the 1100 years old Byzantine empire. Beautifully written that it makes the complex history of Byzantine so easy to understand as the words flow fluidly.
Runciman brings the history alive before the eyes and nowhere it falls into traps of partiality or ambiguity. I have always had a fascination for this part of European history and my knowledge was severely limited and impeded by the complexity of Byzantium as well as of Europe that was in sorry disarray itself. Runciman educates me to great extent; it's like getting from 0 level of knowledge to scoring 6 on a scale of 10.
History gives us many lessons and "what-ifs". Fall of Constantinople does too but then mankind follows it's own course of learning and committing follies by turning away from old experiences.
Every word in the book pulsated. Constantine becomes your Hero too, the Emperor who fought alongside his men till the last moment to save his beloved city. Mehmet II is the regular invader, who just could not rest till he got Constantinople tucked in his growing Ottoman Empire. Once under his thumb, he did try his best to bring semblance of peace and order within his empire by allowing Christians to maintain their identity to some extent.
1453 was a watershed event in European history when Constantinople on the Bosphorus, the straits that divide Europe and Asia became Istanbul. It marked the end of Orthodox Christianity from it's cradle of Greek civilization and echoes the sound of footsteps of Islam in Europe. It may even mark the tussle and conflicts between Islam and Christianity, which continues to this day.
P.S. I just cannot tear myself away from the book, such is it's hold over me. I have started a new book but I am still tugging on to 1453 and have read the last four pages three times already. I am just not ready to send it to the obscurity of the bookshelf.
This is such an extraordinary narrative on the dying moments of the 1100 years old Byzantine empire. Beautifully written that it makes the complex history of Byzantine so easy to understand as the words flow fluidly.
Runciman brings the history alive before the eyes and nowhere it falls into traps of partiality or ambiguity. I have always had a fascination for this part of European history and my knowledge was severely limited and impeded by the complexity of Byzantium as well as of Europe that was in sorry disarray itself. Runciman educates me to great extent; it's like getting from 0 level of knowledge to scoring 6 on a scale of 10.
History gives us many lessons and "what-ifs". Fall of Constantinople does too but then mankind follows it's own course of learning and committing follies by turning away from old experiences.
Every word in the book pulsated. Constantine becomes your Hero too, the Emperor who fought alongside his men till the last moment to save his beloved city. Mehmet II is the regular invader, who just could not rest till he got Constantinople tucked in his growing Ottoman Empire. Once under his thumb, he did try his best to bring semblance of peace and order within his empire by allowing Christians to maintain their identity to some extent.
1453 was a watershed event in European history when Constantinople on the Bosphorus, the straits that divide Europe and Asia became Istanbul. It marked the end of Orthodox Christianity from it's cradle of Greek civilization and echoes the sound of footsteps of Islam in Europe. It may even mark the tussle and conflicts between Islam and Christianity, which continues to this day.
P.S. I just cannot tear myself away from the book, such is it's hold over me. I have started a new book but I am still tugging on to 1453 and have read the last four pages three times already. I am just not ready to send it to the obscurity of the bookshelf.
April 18, 2012
This short book about the final moment of the Eastern Roman empire is pretty touching. My only objection has been the subject is a little too narrow, it'd have been more interesting if it was about the entire history of the Byzantine, nonetheless, I give it 3.5/5 stars for clarity and pathos. The Turks come out of this book pretty barbaric, it should be born in mind that this was an era where witches and heretics were burning on the stake, so while we admire the roman heroism, try not to let cultural prejudices cloud our eyes.
October 4, 2012
An extraordinarily cogent narrative, a page-turner that doesn't wear its erudition on its sleeve. One star deducted for the obvious and necessary concessions to length and narrative. Two hundred pages of intricate diplomacy, battle, and fallout only to conclude that 1453 wasn't really important in the grand scheme. They don't make 'em like they used to.
February 4, 2016
西歐只是嘴巴上擔心東羅馬完蛋
等到東羅馬真的完蛋，那就完蛋了吧
不然還能怎樣呢??
東西教會之爭在當時應該就像今天的統獨一樣吧
大義不可廢，在土耳其進攻之前
先談談東正教融入羅馬公教如何?
等到東羅馬真的完蛋，那就完蛋了吧
不然還能怎樣呢??
東西教會之爭在當時應該就像今天的統獨一樣吧
大義不可廢，在土耳其進攻之前
先談談東正教融入羅馬公教如何?
June 3, 2018
Yazar, fethi iki taraftan ele alarak muazzam bir işe imza atmış. Olabildiğince tarafsız yazmaya çalışmış. Ayrıca kitap, fetih ile değil, Osmanlı ile Doğu Roma'nın geçmişini inceleyerek başladığından, iki tarafın da içinde bulunduğu ruh halini son derece iyi anlıyorsunuz.
November 15, 2018
An enjoyable, short history, not too different from the relevant parts of Gibbon but more fleshed out and with less bias (Runciman doesn't sell short the Turks, who seem more enlightened that the Christians, too zealously schismatic to save their city; nor does he overstate the significance of these events - after all, if it hadn't happened in 1453 it would have happened shortly after), and as haughty and mandarin a writing voice. He thinks that Gibbon saw Byzantium mostly as a barbaric mistake. I hadn't realised that the Crusaders took over Constantinople for Western Christianity after sacking it, for nearly 60 years; until the Palaiologos dynasty brought back the Greeks. After the city fell the Ottomans slowly took over the rest of the Orthodox world, and Russia became the main stronghold of the church. Runciman thinks it a shame that modern Greek nationalism became associated only with the southern tip of the Balkan Peninsula, rather than the broader Greek world. I'm not sure if that's such a bad thing, but it would certainly have obviated the Macedonia naming dispute.
April 14, 2024
One of the best history books I’ve read till date!! It’s so engaging, and you don’t even want to set it down!
The conquest of Constantinople is arguably one of the most famous events that comes to mind when one mentions the Ottoman Empire. Throughout The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Steven Runciman contextualizes the event by not only providing information on the battle itself but also by describing key historical events preceding the city’s fall and its aftermath. Runciman also ensures to include various perspectives on events, namely those of the Greeks, Ottomans, and Genoese.
Would definitely recommend to anyone interested in the fall of Constantinople / the Roman Empire’s Demise / the Ottoman’s Rise. Runciman describes the events in such a manner that even someone with no prior knowledge of Constantinople’s history can understand the book.
The conquest of Constantinople is arguably one of the most famous events that comes to mind when one mentions the Ottoman Empire. Throughout The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Steven Runciman contextualizes the event by not only providing information on the battle itself but also by describing key historical events preceding the city’s fall and its aftermath. Runciman also ensures to include various perspectives on events, namely those of the Greeks, Ottomans, and Genoese.
Would definitely recommend to anyone interested in the fall of Constantinople / the Roman Empire’s Demise / the Ottoman’s Rise. Runciman describes the events in such a manner that even someone with no prior knowledge of Constantinople’s history can understand the book.
December 24, 2019
Steven Runcimandan tam tekmil bir fetih/düşüş hikayesi. Cephenin iki tarafının da psikolojisini, siyas emellerini, tarihe etki eden detayları, Osmanlıdaki Türk / devşirme çekişmesinden surların mimarisine kadar büyük bir bütünlük ve tarafsız bir gözle anlatan enfes bir tarih kitabı. Bizans tarihi zayıf benim gibiler için hanedanı takip etmek biraz zor, ama Ortodoks ve Katolik kiliselerin birleşmesinin bu kuşatma arifesinde ve Batı desteğini sağlamak için olduğunu bu kitapla öğrendim. İstanbulun fethi, gerçekten tarihin en epik ve lirik hikayelerinden biri!
December 21, 2015
Runciman's narrative is epic, dramatic and with pation; maybe the first part of the book is some dull, but after when turns to the siege is an excellent story. The book capture the point of view of the soldiers and generals, you fell the last days of the siege. The book was written in a dramatic way; with a great analisys, but not enough maps and diagrams.
Runciman's book about the fall of Constantinople is an excellent book, highly recommended.
Runciman's book about the fall of Constantinople is an excellent book, highly recommended.
Read
May 22, 2024Eine narrative Erzählung der Eroberung Konstantinopels durch die Osmanen im Jahr 1453. Auf das Buch bin ich durch den Empire-Podcast mit William Dalrymple und Anita Anand gestoßen. Im Podcast lobt Dalrymple die Prosa von Runciman sehr. Es ist gut möglich, dass in der deutschen Übersetzung etwas von Runcimans British wit verlorengegangen ist - erfahrungsgemäß verlieren Nonfiction-Übersetzungen aus dem Englischen häufiger die Leichtigkeit des Originals und werden um ein paar schulmeisterliche Bandwurmsätze "bereichert". Ob das hier der Fall ist, kann ich nicht sagen, aber ich kann mich Dalrymples großem Lob über Runcimans Stil nicht anschließen. Die Prosa ist nicht schlecht, erreicht aber nicht beispielsweise die diskursive Prägnanz und Schärfe eines Christopher Clark oder die malerischen Beschreibungen eines Peter Frankopan. Mein Eindruck mag auch dadurch eingefärbt sein, dass ich die meisten spannenden Details der Belagerung schon kannte. Somit konnte bzw. musste ich mich sehr auf den Stil fokussieren. Das ist dem Text nicht anzulasten.
Inhaltlich neu war für mich immerhin die hastig beschlossene Kirchenunion in den Vorjahren der Belagerung. Ein fehlgeschlagener Schachzug, der die Sympathien anderer orthodoxen Staaten schmälerte, ohne dafür die Hilfe der Katholiken sicherzustellen, und gleichzeitig für Unmut in der Bevölkerung sorgte.
Die Beschreibung der Belagerung ist, trotz meiner eingeschränkten Begeisterung für Runcimans Stil, sehr gut gelungen. Ich bin aber nicht sicher, ob die vorangestellte tour de force durch ein paar Jahrhunderte byzantinischer und osmanischer Geschichte dem Buch zuträglich war. Um hieraus wirklich etwas mitzunehmen, ist die Darstellung zu knapp, stattdessen schwirrt einem der Kopf vor Namen. Lieber hätte ich mir mehr Raum dafür gewünscht, die osmanischen und byzantinischen Systeme und Gesellschaften zur Zeit der Belagerung zu erläutern: Was waren das für Länder, die sich dort bekriegten, wie funktionierten sie? Wie waren die Gesellschaften strukturiert, wie sah der Alltag aus? Es gibt solche Passagen im Buch, und diese sind alle exzellent. Es hätte dem Buch gut getan, diese Skizzen mit mehr Details zu füllen, und sich dafür den chronologischen Abriss am Anfang zu sparen.
Die türkische bzw. osmanische Perspektive kommt im Buch außerdem zu kurz. Statt mir am Ende noch zu erzählen, wo irgendwelche entfernten Verwandten des verstorbenen byzantinischen Kaisers untergekommen sind, hätte ich gerne mehr darüber erfahren, wie die Osmanen die eroberte Stadt regierten. Ein bisschen findet man dazu, vornehmlich über den Umgang dieser neuen, muslimischen Herrscher mit der orthodoxen Kirche. Aber wir erfahren nur in einem einzigen Satz, dass die Bevölkerung des fast ausgestorbenen Konstantinopel unter den Osmanen wieder rapide anwuchs. Wie kam es dazu? Hierzu hätte ich mir mehr gewünscht, statt die Fluchtwege einzelner, byzantinischer Staatspersonen nachzuverfolgen.
Meine Kritik am Buch lässt sich damit ganz gut zusammenfassen, dass der Fokus zu sehr auf Persönlichkeiten und zu wenig auf sozialen Kräften und Systemen liegt. Das liegt mit Sicherheit daran, dass dieses Buch mittlerweile knapp 60 Jahre alt ist, aber dennoch. Trotzdem werde ich Runcimans dickes Buch über die Kreuzzüge noch lesen. Über diese Zeitspanne weiß ich bedeutend weniger, also hat das Buch vermutlich mehr für mich zu bieten. Die inhaltlichen Leerstellen, die ich hier bei Runciman gesehen habe, versuche ich beizeiten mit einem aktuelleren Buch über die osmanische Geschichte auszugleichen.
Inhaltlich neu war für mich immerhin die hastig beschlossene Kirchenunion in den Vorjahren der Belagerung. Ein fehlgeschlagener Schachzug, der die Sympathien anderer orthodoxen Staaten schmälerte, ohne dafür die Hilfe der Katholiken sicherzustellen, und gleichzeitig für Unmut in der Bevölkerung sorgte.
Die Beschreibung der Belagerung ist, trotz meiner eingeschränkten Begeisterung für Runcimans Stil, sehr gut gelungen. Ich bin aber nicht sicher, ob die vorangestellte tour de force durch ein paar Jahrhunderte byzantinischer und osmanischer Geschichte dem Buch zuträglich war. Um hieraus wirklich etwas mitzunehmen, ist die Darstellung zu knapp, stattdessen schwirrt einem der Kopf vor Namen. Lieber hätte ich mir mehr Raum dafür gewünscht, die osmanischen und byzantinischen Systeme und Gesellschaften zur Zeit der Belagerung zu erläutern: Was waren das für Länder, die sich dort bekriegten, wie funktionierten sie? Wie waren die Gesellschaften strukturiert, wie sah der Alltag aus? Es gibt solche Passagen im Buch, und diese sind alle exzellent. Es hätte dem Buch gut getan, diese Skizzen mit mehr Details zu füllen, und sich dafür den chronologischen Abriss am Anfang zu sparen.
Die türkische bzw. osmanische Perspektive kommt im Buch außerdem zu kurz. Statt mir am Ende noch zu erzählen, wo irgendwelche entfernten Verwandten des verstorbenen byzantinischen Kaisers untergekommen sind, hätte ich gerne mehr darüber erfahren, wie die Osmanen die eroberte Stadt regierten. Ein bisschen findet man dazu, vornehmlich über den Umgang dieser neuen, muslimischen Herrscher mit der orthodoxen Kirche. Aber wir erfahren nur in einem einzigen Satz, dass die Bevölkerung des fast ausgestorbenen Konstantinopel unter den Osmanen wieder rapide anwuchs. Wie kam es dazu? Hierzu hätte ich mir mehr gewünscht, statt die Fluchtwege einzelner, byzantinischer Staatspersonen nachzuverfolgen.
Meine Kritik am Buch lässt sich damit ganz gut zusammenfassen, dass der Fokus zu sehr auf Persönlichkeiten und zu wenig auf sozialen Kräften und Systemen liegt. Das liegt mit Sicherheit daran, dass dieses Buch mittlerweile knapp 60 Jahre alt ist, aber dennoch. Trotzdem werde ich Runcimans dickes Buch über die Kreuzzüge noch lesen. Über diese Zeitspanne weiß ich bedeutend weniger, also hat das Buch vermutlich mehr für mich zu bieten. Die inhaltlichen Leerstellen, die ich hier bei Runciman gesehen habe, versuche ich beizeiten mit einem aktuelleren Buch über die osmanische Geschichte auszugleichen.
May 25, 2024
How can not but love the history written by Steven Runciman? He was one of those marvelous creatures that only pre WWII England produced eccentric, high camp queer man, spy and diplomat, post war stalwart of the British Council (what that? you might well ask - another form of outdoor relief for impoverished but intelligent and well connected young and not so young Englioshmen) aristocrat in attitude more than birth though he had the airs and cash to carry off the aristocratic life style. He wrote beautifully and was a bit of a pompous old busy boddy hobnobbing with various orthodx dignataries of elaborate dress and title but minimum significance.
There is not a hisoprian more suited to writing of the bpoetic end of the Roman empire in 1453 because despite Gibbon and later histoians what died in 1453 and disapeared as completely as Constantinople's last emperor was the final fragment of that empire which was born on the banks of the Tiber and once encompassed most of the known Mediteranean world. It is a tale of myths and poetry down to the era departure of the virgin Mary's protection through a firey burst of flame that shot up from nthe dome of Haga Sophia into the sky. Are even half the stories true? Who knows? Does it matter? As historty of course it does but the disapearance of the final remnant of that the Grandeur that was Rome and the Glory that was Greece was deserving of the obsequies of a great historian. The reality is that the Eastern empire had been life support since the fourth crusade captured it in 1204. That it ended in a doomed defense that was more make believe then reality was the only way for it to go with dignity.
Is Runciman's history the best, probably not. Like his history of the Crusades it was based on medieval chronicles and eschewed any of the gains of archeology or philology. It was a tale of good and bad. It is not inaccurate so much as superseeded but is there a better written history of the end of christian Constantinople in 1453 in English? I doubt it. I also doubt that there is another history that would so engage a reader as to want to learn and read more. There has been efloresence of marvellous history weriting in English on 'Byzantium' in the 21st century and if Runciman encourages anyone to read and learn more of that peculiar but marvellous world then he is doing what he always did best - enchanting people into a love of history.
There is not a hisoprian more suited to writing of the bpoetic end of the Roman empire in 1453 because despite Gibbon and later histoians what died in 1453 and disapeared as completely as Constantinople's last emperor was the final fragment of that empire which was born on the banks of the Tiber and once encompassed most of the known Mediteranean world. It is a tale of myths and poetry down to the era departure of the virgin Mary's protection through a firey burst of flame that shot up from nthe dome of Haga Sophia into the sky. Are even half the stories true? Who knows? Does it matter? As historty of course it does but the disapearance of the final remnant of that the Grandeur that was Rome and the Glory that was Greece was deserving of the obsequies of a great historian. The reality is that the Eastern empire had been life support since the fourth crusade captured it in 1204. That it ended in a doomed defense that was more make believe then reality was the only way for it to go with dignity.
Is Runciman's history the best, probably not. Like his history of the Crusades it was based on medieval chronicles and eschewed any of the gains of archeology or philology. It was a tale of good and bad. It is not inaccurate so much as superseeded but is there a better written history of the end of christian Constantinople in 1453 in English? I doubt it. I also doubt that there is another history that would so engage a reader as to want to learn and read more. There has been efloresence of marvellous history weriting in English on 'Byzantium' in the 21st century and if Runciman encourages anyone to read and learn more of that peculiar but marvellous world then he is doing what he always did best - enchanting people into a love of history.
September 7, 2023
This was a re-read. This passage never fails to move me:
The day was nearly over. Already crowds were moving towards the great Church of the Holy Wisdom. For the past five months no pious Greek had stepped through its portals to hear the Sacred Liturgy defiled by Latins and by renegades. But on that evening the bitterness was ended. Barely a citizen, except for the soldiers on the walls, stayed away from this desperate service of intercession. Priests who held union with Rome to be a mortal sin now came to the altar to serve with their Unionist brothers. The Cardinal was there, and beside him bishops who would never acknowledge his authority; and all the people came to make confession and take communion, not caring whether Orthodox or Catholic administered it. There were Italians and Catalans along with the Greeks. The golden mosaics, studded with the images of Christ and His Saints and the Emperors and Empresses of Byzantium, glimmered in the light of a thousand lamps and candles; and beneath them for the last time the priests in their splendid vestments moved in the solemn rhythm of the Liturgy. At this moment there was union in the Church of Constantinople.
The day was nearly over. Already crowds were moving towards the great Church of the Holy Wisdom. For the past five months no pious Greek had stepped through its portals to hear the Sacred Liturgy defiled by Latins and by renegades. But on that evening the bitterness was ended. Barely a citizen, except for the soldiers on the walls, stayed away from this desperate service of intercession. Priests who held union with Rome to be a mortal sin now came to the altar to serve with their Unionist brothers. The Cardinal was there, and beside him bishops who would never acknowledge his authority; and all the people came to make confession and take communion, not caring whether Orthodox or Catholic administered it. There were Italians and Catalans along with the Greeks. The golden mosaics, studded with the images of Christ and His Saints and the Emperors and Empresses of Byzantium, glimmered in the light of a thousand lamps and candles; and beneath them for the last time the priests in their splendid vestments moved in the solemn rhythm of the Liturgy. At this moment there was union in the Church of Constantinople.
December 11, 2021
Jedna z těch knih, kde od začátku trpíte, protože víte, že to špatně skončí, ale přesto hltáte stránku za stránku a na konci každé další si odfouknete, že osudová rána ještě nepřišla. No a pak přeci jen přijde :)
Literárně jde o skvělé dílo, maličký problém bych asi měl s tím, že je to napsáno (především jazykově) z pro-byzantských) pozic, ale nešť, nestranná dějeprava je stejně spíš iluze :) Na druhou stranu i Turci jsou pro mě sepsáni podrobně a velmi zajímavě, takže to se vyrovnává.
A ještě jedna věc mě fascinuje; Jak se i zde opakuje zdá se věčný motiv, kdy je vyšší dobro (záchrana Konstantinopole) za všeobecného zděšení naprosto zrazeno partikulárními zájmy (politiků, obchodníků, papeže). Jako bych znovu četl Válku s mloky.
Jasných 5 hvězd.
Literárně jde o skvělé dílo, maličký problém bych asi měl s tím, že je to napsáno (především jazykově) z pro-byzantských) pozic, ale nešť, nestranná dějeprava je stejně spíš iluze :) Na druhou stranu i Turci jsou pro mě sepsáni podrobně a velmi zajímavě, takže to se vyrovnává.
A ještě jedna věc mě fascinuje; Jak se i zde opakuje zdá se věčný motiv, kdy je vyšší dobro (záchrana Konstantinopole) za všeobecného zděšení naprosto zrazeno partikulárními zájmy (politiků, obchodníků, papeže). Jako bych znovu četl Válku s mloky.
Jasných 5 hvězd.
January 24, 2020
A well written, and well sourced account of the famous siege. The author succinctly presents the points of view from the different parties involved throughout the siege. This book, unlike others delves deeper into the motivations (or lack thereof) of Venice and Genoa; which I found very interesting.
The author goes into a sufficient level of detail around the Council Of Florence while not going deep enough bore the reader to sleep with minuscule doctrinal differences that were discussed.
My only criticism would be that the two different accounts of the emperor's finally speech were excluded, and instead summarized by the author. As these are freely available, I would've thought it prudent to include both, at very least within the appendices.
The author goes into a sufficient level of detail around the Council Of Florence while not going deep enough bore the reader to sleep with minuscule doctrinal differences that were discussed.
My only criticism would be that the two different accounts of the emperor's finally speech were excluded, and instead summarized by the author. As these are freely available, I would've thought it prudent to include both, at very least within the appendices.
February 13, 2020
A few pages in this book are worth the whole anthology of Byzantium. This is the month of May, 1453:
"And on the 23rd (…), Christian hopes suffered a terrible blow. That afternoon a boat was sighted tacking up the Marmora with a number of Turkish vessels in pursuit. She shook them off; and under cover of darkness the boom was opened to let her in. It was thought at first that she was the forerunner of a relieving fleet. But she was the brigantine that had sailed twenty days before to search for the Venetians. She had cruised to and fro through the islands of the Aegean; but no Venetian ships had been found nor were there even any rumours of ships in the offing. When it seemed useless to search any longer the captain asked the sailors what their wishes were. One man said that it was foolish to return to a city that was probably already in Turkish hands. But the others silenced him. It was their duty, they declared, to go back and tell the Emperor, whether it was to life or to death. When they came to his presence he wept as he thanked diem. No Christian power was coming to join in the battle for Christendom. The city could now only put its faith, he said, in Christ and His Mother, and Saint Constantine its founder.
Even this faith was to be tested. There were signs that Heaven itself was turning against the city. During these days everyone remembered again the prophecies that the Empire would perish. The first Christian Emperor had been Constantine, son of Helena; the last would be similarly named. Men remembered, too, a prophecy that the city would never fall while the moon was waxing in the heavens. This had cheered the defenders when they faced the assault during the previous week. But on 24 May the moon would be at the full; and under the waning moon peril would come. On the night of the full moon there was an eclipse and three hours of darkness. It was probably on the following day, when the citizens all knew of the hopeless message brought by the brigantine, and when the eclipse had lowered their spirits still deeper, that a last appeal was made to the Mother of God. Her holiest icon was carried on the shoulders of the faithful round the streets of the city, and everyone who could be spared from the walls joined in the procession. As it moved slowly and solemnly the icon suddenly slipped off the platform on which it was borne. When men rushed to raise it, it seemed as though it were made of lead; only the greatest effort could replace it. Then, as the procession wound on, a thunder-storm burst on the city. It was almost impossible to stand up against the hail, and the rain came down in such torrents that whole streets were flooded and children nearly swept away. The procession had to be abandoned. Next day, as if such omens had not been enough, the whole city was blotted out by a thick fog, a phenomenon unknown in those lands in the month of May. The Divine Presence was veiling itself in cloud, to conceal its departure from the city. That night, when the fog had lifted, it was noticed that a strange light played about the dome of the great Church of the Holy Wisdom. It was seen from the Turkish camp as well as by the citizens; and the Turks, too, were disquieted. The Sultan himself had to be reassured by his wise men who interpreted the sign as showing that the light of the True Faith would soon illumine the sacred building. For the Greeks and their Italian allies there was no such comforting interpretation.
Lights, too, could be seen from the walls, glimmering in the distant countryside far behind the Turkish camp, where no lights should be. A few hopeful watchmen declared that these were the camp-fires of troops coming with John Hunyadi to rescue the beleaguered Christians. But no army appeared. The strange lights were never explained.
Now once again the Emperor’s ministers went to him to beg him to escape while still it might be possible and organize the defence of Christendom from some safer spot where he might find support. He was so weary that while they talked to him he fainted. When he revived he told them once more that he could not desert his people; he would die with them.
The month of May was drawing to a close; and in the gardens and the hedgerows the roses were now in bloom. But the moon was waning; and the men and women of Byzantium, the ancient city whose symbol had been the moon, prepared themselves to meet the crisis that all knew to be upon them."
Not a very easy read though : the author condenses a century of history and the whole Mediterranean scene in about 100 pages. A feat, but sometimes hard to follow with all the names and the sultans and the emperors. Once you overcome this, you really are in another world, and this is Runciman at his best.
"And on the 23rd (…), Christian hopes suffered a terrible blow. That afternoon a boat was sighted tacking up the Marmora with a number of Turkish vessels in pursuit. She shook them off; and under cover of darkness the boom was opened to let her in. It was thought at first that she was the forerunner of a relieving fleet. But she was the brigantine that had sailed twenty days before to search for the Venetians. She had cruised to and fro through the islands of the Aegean; but no Venetian ships had been found nor were there even any rumours of ships in the offing. When it seemed useless to search any longer the captain asked the sailors what their wishes were. One man said that it was foolish to return to a city that was probably already in Turkish hands. But the others silenced him. It was their duty, they declared, to go back and tell the Emperor, whether it was to life or to death. When they came to his presence he wept as he thanked diem. No Christian power was coming to join in the battle for Christendom. The city could now only put its faith, he said, in Christ and His Mother, and Saint Constantine its founder.
Even this faith was to be tested. There were signs that Heaven itself was turning against the city. During these days everyone remembered again the prophecies that the Empire would perish. The first Christian Emperor had been Constantine, son of Helena; the last would be similarly named. Men remembered, too, a prophecy that the city would never fall while the moon was waxing in the heavens. This had cheered the defenders when they faced the assault during the previous week. But on 24 May the moon would be at the full; and under the waning moon peril would come. On the night of the full moon there was an eclipse and three hours of darkness. It was probably on the following day, when the citizens all knew of the hopeless message brought by the brigantine, and when the eclipse had lowered their spirits still deeper, that a last appeal was made to the Mother of God. Her holiest icon was carried on the shoulders of the faithful round the streets of the city, and everyone who could be spared from the walls joined in the procession. As it moved slowly and solemnly the icon suddenly slipped off the platform on which it was borne. When men rushed to raise it, it seemed as though it were made of lead; only the greatest effort could replace it. Then, as the procession wound on, a thunder-storm burst on the city. It was almost impossible to stand up against the hail, and the rain came down in such torrents that whole streets were flooded and children nearly swept away. The procession had to be abandoned. Next day, as if such omens had not been enough, the whole city was blotted out by a thick fog, a phenomenon unknown in those lands in the month of May. The Divine Presence was veiling itself in cloud, to conceal its departure from the city. That night, when the fog had lifted, it was noticed that a strange light played about the dome of the great Church of the Holy Wisdom. It was seen from the Turkish camp as well as by the citizens; and the Turks, too, were disquieted. The Sultan himself had to be reassured by his wise men who interpreted the sign as showing that the light of the True Faith would soon illumine the sacred building. For the Greeks and their Italian allies there was no such comforting interpretation.
Lights, too, could be seen from the walls, glimmering in the distant countryside far behind the Turkish camp, where no lights should be. A few hopeful watchmen declared that these were the camp-fires of troops coming with John Hunyadi to rescue the beleaguered Christians. But no army appeared. The strange lights were never explained.
Now once again the Emperor’s ministers went to him to beg him to escape while still it might be possible and organize the defence of Christendom from some safer spot where he might find support. He was so weary that while they talked to him he fainted. When he revived he told them once more that he could not desert his people; he would die with them.
The month of May was drawing to a close; and in the gardens and the hedgerows the roses were now in bloom. But the moon was waning; and the men and women of Byzantium, the ancient city whose symbol had been the moon, prepared themselves to meet the crisis that all knew to be upon them."
Not a very easy read though : the author condenses a century of history and the whole Mediterranean scene in about 100 pages. A feat, but sometimes hard to follow with all the names and the sultans and the emperors. Once you overcome this, you really are in another world, and this is Runciman at his best.
June 18, 2016
It all started with a question from a dear friend: He wanted to know about a musical piece that I recommended to him many years ago. The piece was titled "Everytime the City Falls", and had been recorded by Audiofact, a group of jazz musicians from Turkey and USA [1]. It was an interesting and dynamic interpretation of a very old composition: A piece titled "Lamentatio sanctae matris ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae" by a Franco-Flemish composer, Guillaume Du Fay, written about 560 years ago, lamenting the fall of Constantinople [2].
Having spent the first 32 years of my life in the modern city of Istanbul, and now living barely a few kilometers away from where composer Guillaume Du Fay was born (who is also mentioned in the book), I decided to read "The Fall of Constantinople, 1453". I don't regret the decision.
If you have even a modicum of interest in history, be prepared for a lot of reading pleasure. The author, even though he did his homework, and went through many original sources, is not here to give you a dry account of chronological facts. Rather, the whole story, together with its grand context, is presented in a living, breathing narrative. In a few hundred pages that simply flow, you will not only learn about the state of the Byzantine Empire in its last few decades, as well as main events happening on the other side of the wall, that is, Turkish people getting closer and closer every day, but you will also appreciate how the twists and turns of events shaped the history of Constantinople and Istanbul as we know it.
If you, like me, read the book around the anniversary of the event, you'll also realize how politicized the whole thing is, after more than 560 years. A cursory glance at mainstream media and social media will reveal that some people worship the event as the Ottoman genius conquering the most prized city and civilization, and some others still feeling the pity because some 'barbarians' broke the walls and put a sudden end to the pinnacle of civilization. The truth is, as any avid student of history knows, never that black and white. There's no glory in absolute terms, no 100% villains and heroes. Instead there's always the tragedy and the drama. There's always the bitter rivalries and tragic competition even among the 'friends'. And as this exquisite book shows clearly, there's always the problem of money and human short-sightedness.
Some parts of the book might disturb readers who regard Mehmed the Conqueror (Memhmed II) not only as the young and fierce military genius, but also the supreme ruler carrying the sword of Islam, because the book does not refrain from talking about his appreciation of wine, as well as his lust for young and handsome boys.
Apart from interesting personal details, the book portrays how fragmented the city was, as well as how fragmented the European powers, who were supposed to help the Byzantine Empire, were. This, and of course, the religious power struggle between Catholics and Orthodox churches. What makes it more interesting is the rivalry between the Venetian and Genoese people living in Constantinople, and how their governments made cold-blooded calculations to keep their commerce intact to the extent possible. The rulers change, the religious authorities change, the names come and go, but of course, keeping the flow of money is the most important thing to focus on, the rest are diplomatic and political details to be negotiated whoever declares himself to be the supreme ruler.
One thing for sure, having read the book, it is impossible for me to walk the old streets of Istanbul the same way I did before. Every step I take, I'll remember the ancient stories, and how they shaped the city I grew up. As the modern city is crumbling under the weight of its current population of 15 million people, I will keep on wondering whether it will fall again, and if its rulers will ever be as wise and well-educated as former ones such as Byzantine emperors and Mehmed the Conqueror.
1- http://www.allmusic.com/song/everytim...
2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamenta...
Having spent the first 32 years of my life in the modern city of Istanbul, and now living barely a few kilometers away from where composer Guillaume Du Fay was born (who is also mentioned in the book), I decided to read "The Fall of Constantinople, 1453". I don't regret the decision.
If you have even a modicum of interest in history, be prepared for a lot of reading pleasure. The author, even though he did his homework, and went through many original sources, is not here to give you a dry account of chronological facts. Rather, the whole story, together with its grand context, is presented in a living, breathing narrative. In a few hundred pages that simply flow, you will not only learn about the state of the Byzantine Empire in its last few decades, as well as main events happening on the other side of the wall, that is, Turkish people getting closer and closer every day, but you will also appreciate how the twists and turns of events shaped the history of Constantinople and Istanbul as we know it.
If you, like me, read the book around the anniversary of the event, you'll also realize how politicized the whole thing is, after more than 560 years. A cursory glance at mainstream media and social media will reveal that some people worship the event as the Ottoman genius conquering the most prized city and civilization, and some others still feeling the pity because some 'barbarians' broke the walls and put a sudden end to the pinnacle of civilization. The truth is, as any avid student of history knows, never that black and white. There's no glory in absolute terms, no 100% villains and heroes. Instead there's always the tragedy and the drama. There's always the bitter rivalries and tragic competition even among the 'friends'. And as this exquisite book shows clearly, there's always the problem of money and human short-sightedness.
Some parts of the book might disturb readers who regard Mehmed the Conqueror (Memhmed II) not only as the young and fierce military genius, but also the supreme ruler carrying the sword of Islam, because the book does not refrain from talking about his appreciation of wine, as well as his lust for young and handsome boys.
Apart from interesting personal details, the book portrays how fragmented the city was, as well as how fragmented the European powers, who were supposed to help the Byzantine Empire, were. This, and of course, the religious power struggle between Catholics and Orthodox churches. What makes it more interesting is the rivalry between the Venetian and Genoese people living in Constantinople, and how their governments made cold-blooded calculations to keep their commerce intact to the extent possible. The rulers change, the religious authorities change, the names come and go, but of course, keeping the flow of money is the most important thing to focus on, the rest are diplomatic and political details to be negotiated whoever declares himself to be the supreme ruler.
One thing for sure, having read the book, it is impossible for me to walk the old streets of Istanbul the same way I did before. Every step I take, I'll remember the ancient stories, and how they shaped the city I grew up. As the modern city is crumbling under the weight of its current population of 15 million people, I will keep on wondering whether it will fall again, and if its rulers will ever be as wise and well-educated as former ones such as Byzantine emperors and Mehmed the Conqueror.
1- http://www.allmusic.com/song/everytim...
2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamenta...
March 14, 2018
This book has a lot of weaknesses. As of this writing, it is over 50 years old, and many of the "modern works" cited date from when the Ottoman Empire still existed. The author makes a number of unusual writing choices - at times he references "the Arab caliphate" - you know, the one-and-only! On page 58 there is a rather long and unusual description of the Sultan's physical features: "He was handsome, of middle height but strongly built. He face was dominated by a pair of piercing eyes, under arched eyebrows, and a thin hooked nose that curved over a mouth with full red lips. In later life his features reminded men of a parrot about to eat ripe cherries." My personal favorite is from page 78, describing a cannon-ball fired from one of the Sultan's guns: "The length of its barrel was 40 spans, that is, 26 ft and 8 in. The reverberation was heard for a hundred stadia, and the ball hurtled itself in the air for a mile, then buried itself 6 ft deep in the earth." Ah, yes, because we all know how long a stadium is!
Steven Runciman is writing History with a capital H, and is completly allergic to things like explanations, or citations, or actually quoting primary sources. On pages 128 and 130 he describes the Sultan's and the Emperor's rallying speeches to their men on the day of the last battle - it would have been nice if either of those page-long parphrases had been replaced with the actual speeches, or at least quotes. On page 79 the author writes about the omens surrounding a possible conquest of Constantinople, with quotes taken from "the Tradition" of Islam - you know, hadiths have actual citations too, Sir Runciman. On page 75 the author almost approaches something resembling historical methodology by talking about the different figures given for the size of the Turkish army - but then declares the (unnamed and uncited) Italian accounts more reliable with no explanation whatsoever.
The most egregious example is from pages 20 and 21, where the author explains why many Greeks were reluctant to accept Union with Rome. "But there were many thoughtful statesmen who also doubted the benefits of union. Many calculated, with reason, that the West would never be willing or able to send help . . . A few statesmen looked further ahead. Byzantium . . . was doomed. The only chance of reuniting the Greek Church and with the Greek people might well like in accepting Turkish bondage . . . Only thus might it be possible to reconstitute the Orthodox Greek nation and so revive it that in time it might regain enough strength to throw off the infidel yoke and recreate Byzantium. Greek integrity might well be better preserved by a united people under Moslem rule than by a fragment attached to the rim of the Western world."
This is an absolutely fascinating argument. But who the hell are these thoughtful statesmen? Sir Runciman never bothers to cite them, never bothers to name his sources, never even bothers to name the apparently numerous people who had the foresight to predict the Greek Independence War and the Megali Idea centuries in the future. I have no idea if what he is saying has any basis in the contemporary reality or if it is just the imposition of a 20th century Byzantine fanboy because a Cambridge historian places no value on actually producing evidence for anything that he says.
So if I have so many criticisms, why do I give the book 4 stars? My praise is short and simple - the writing is good. This might be deeply flawed historical method, but it is accurate enough, and is utterly brilliant writing. I will read this book again, because Runciman's History with a capital H is a first-rate story. If you are totally new to Byzantine history, do not start with this book because you will be unable to piece apart all the unexplained bits that Runciman loves. But if you have a passing familiarity with the context and want to read an awesome book about political drama, treason and betrayal, naval battles, desperate sieges, huge walls, Greek fire, and 1000-lb cannon balls, give this book a shot.
Steven Runciman is writing History with a capital H, and is completly allergic to things like explanations, or citations, or actually quoting primary sources. On pages 128 and 130 he describes the Sultan's and the Emperor's rallying speeches to their men on the day of the last battle - it would have been nice if either of those page-long parphrases had been replaced with the actual speeches, or at least quotes. On page 79 the author writes about the omens surrounding a possible conquest of Constantinople, with quotes taken from "the Tradition" of Islam - you know, hadiths have actual citations too, Sir Runciman. On page 75 the author almost approaches something resembling historical methodology by talking about the different figures given for the size of the Turkish army - but then declares the (unnamed and uncited) Italian accounts more reliable with no explanation whatsoever.
The most egregious example is from pages 20 and 21, where the author explains why many Greeks were reluctant to accept Union with Rome. "But there were many thoughtful statesmen who also doubted the benefits of union. Many calculated, with reason, that the West would never be willing or able to send help . . . A few statesmen looked further ahead. Byzantium . . . was doomed. The only chance of reuniting the Greek Church and with the Greek people might well like in accepting Turkish bondage . . . Only thus might it be possible to reconstitute the Orthodox Greek nation and so revive it that in time it might regain enough strength to throw off the infidel yoke and recreate Byzantium. Greek integrity might well be better preserved by a united people under Moslem rule than by a fragment attached to the rim of the Western world."
This is an absolutely fascinating argument. But who the hell are these thoughtful statesmen? Sir Runciman never bothers to cite them, never bothers to name his sources, never even bothers to name the apparently numerous people who had the foresight to predict the Greek Independence War and the Megali Idea centuries in the future. I have no idea if what he is saying has any basis in the contemporary reality or if it is just the imposition of a 20th century Byzantine fanboy because a Cambridge historian places no value on actually producing evidence for anything that he says.
So if I have so many criticisms, why do I give the book 4 stars? My praise is short and simple - the writing is good. This might be deeply flawed historical method, but it is accurate enough, and is utterly brilliant writing. I will read this book again, because Runciman's History with a capital H is a first-rate story. If you are totally new to Byzantine history, do not start with this book because you will be unable to piece apart all the unexplained bits that Runciman loves. But if you have a passing familiarity with the context and want to read an awesome book about political drama, treason and betrayal, naval battles, desperate sieges, huge walls, Greek fire, and 1000-lb cannon balls, give this book a shot.
May 24, 2024
A well-balanced narrative of the period. Details finely the major circumstances of the important figures’ lives.
February 6, 2018
Runciman va proprio alla grande. Il rigore storico va a braccetto con la narrazione avvincente, quasi un romanzo, o meglio il racconto di una "storia". Costantinopoli è alla frutta, accerchiata per mare e per terra dagli ottomani; è triste e doloroso leggere quasi giorno per giorno, ora per ora, la cronaca dell'assedio, l'eroismo dei difensori, la lotta strenua e disperata, il valore dell'ultimo imperatore, Costantino (nomen-omen) che muore combattendo, fino alla fine, e all'orribile strazio del saccheggio, degli stupri e delle stragi. E prima ancora, l'antefatto, ovvero lo stanziarsi successivo nelle provincie dell'Asia minore della varie tribù turche al seguito dei Selgiuchidi, nomadi e meno nomadi, guerrieri, razziatori, pecorari, invasati fanatici etc., che si riversano dall'Asia centrale e dall'Iran e pezzo per pezzo divorano l'impero romano d'oriente. E l'emergere di un piccolo clan, un piccolo emirato vassallo, che lentamente avanza e divora cristiani e musulmani, tutto inglobando ( gli ottomani!), sbarcando prima in Tracia e conquistando per poi rivolgersi alla II Roma.
E poi le richieste d'aiuto dei bizantini, le porcate degli occidentali (tra cui la vecchia e precedente porcata maxima del 1204 in cui primeggeranno i venexiani) e poi le proposte ricattatorie della curia papale. E la fuga di chi ha capito che è finita, prima che finisca del tutto e si faccia la fine del sorcio: l'arrivo degli umanisti greci e dei testi classici i Italia e via con il Rinascimento (grazie, Maometto II?). Un libro meraviglioso, il cui racconto non finisce con il 29 maggio 1453, ma prosegue con la tragica narrazione dei giorni successivi e degli anni seguenti.
E poi le richieste d'aiuto dei bizantini, le porcate degli occidentali (tra cui la vecchia e precedente porcata maxima del 1204 in cui primeggeranno i venexiani) e poi le proposte ricattatorie della curia papale. E la fuga di chi ha capito che è finita, prima che finisca del tutto e si faccia la fine del sorcio: l'arrivo degli umanisti greci e dei testi classici i Italia e via con il Rinascimento (grazie, Maometto II?). Un libro meraviglioso, il cui racconto non finisce con il 29 maggio 1453, ma prosegue con la tragica narrazione dei giorni successivi e degli anni seguenti.
March 6, 2014
Read By: Charlton Griffin
Copyright: 1965
Audiobook Copyright: 2009
Genre: History
Publisher: Audio Connoisseur
Abridged: No
Blurb - Few events have riveted the imagination or wrung the heart as did the
fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. With its passage into the
hands of the Ottoman Empire, European history entered a new era and
Byzantine Civilization disappeared forever. Although Constantinople
had been under constant pressure from Muslim incursions for over seven
centuries, its fall came as a bitter shock to the West.
Neglected and mistrusted by Catholic Europe, and absorbed in its own
problems, help was too little and too late in coming.When the young
Mehmet II became Sultan of the Ottoman Turks in 1451, few expected this
quiet young man to be rash enough to disturb the simmering peace which
his father had maintained with the Greeks for decades. They were soon
to learn otherwise. Though the city was bravely defended by 7,000 soldiers, the odds were hopeless and the outcome increasingly clear to the beleaguered Emperor Constantine XI, who courageously joined the last of the desperate fighting...never to be seen again.
Though Constantinople was gloriously resurrected and had a population
10 times greater within 30 years, its magnificent Byzantine Civilization was over. Its inhabitants came under the yoke of Islam while thousands who could afford to, fled to the West, bringing valuable knowledge which hastened the flowering of the Italian Renaissance.
Copyright: 1965
Audiobook Copyright: 2009
Genre: History
Publisher: Audio Connoisseur
Abridged: No
Blurb - Few events have riveted the imagination or wrung the heart as did the
fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. With its passage into the
hands of the Ottoman Empire, European history entered a new era and
Byzantine Civilization disappeared forever. Although Constantinople
had been under constant pressure from Muslim incursions for over seven
centuries, its fall came as a bitter shock to the West.
Neglected and mistrusted by Catholic Europe, and absorbed in its own
problems, help was too little and too late in coming.When the young
Mehmet II became Sultan of the Ottoman Turks in 1451, few expected this
quiet young man to be rash enough to disturb the simmering peace which
his father had maintained with the Greeks for decades. They were soon
to learn otherwise. Though the city was bravely defended by 7,000 soldiers, the odds were hopeless and the outcome increasingly clear to the beleaguered Emperor Constantine XI, who courageously joined the last of the desperate fighting...never to be seen again.
Though Constantinople was gloriously resurrected and had a population
10 times greater within 30 years, its magnificent Byzantine Civilization was over. Its inhabitants came under the yoke of Islam while thousands who could afford to, fled to the West, bringing valuable knowledge which hastened the flowering of the Italian Renaissance.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 17, 2016
This book offers a very vivid and detailed account of the how and why of the fall of Constantinople in 1453. While the majority of the book considers the actual events of 1453 – as the titles indicates – the author also treats the context of these events in much detail. Both the gradual decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of Islam and the Turkish ghazi are considered.
The book was written in the mid 1960's, however, and it shows. The author clearly wrote from a Christian / European point of view and seems much more favourable in his descriptions of the Christian side of the story than the Muslim side. For similar actions, Muslims are described as pretentious and arrogant, while the Christian defenders get adjectives such as brave and courageous. And while even minor or insignificant Christian participants in the defense of the city are named individually, the Muslims are generally treated as a lump mass of attackers.
I enjoyed the book for the amount of detail: it made me feel as if I actually was within the walls of this great city around the time of its fall. However, readers should really be aware that this book offers by no means and objective account!
The book was written in the mid 1960's, however, and it shows. The author clearly wrote from a Christian / European point of view and seems much more favourable in his descriptions of the Christian side of the story than the Muslim side. For similar actions, Muslims are described as pretentious and arrogant, while the Christian defenders get adjectives such as brave and courageous. And while even minor or insignificant Christian participants in the defense of the city are named individually, the Muslims are generally treated as a lump mass of attackers.
I enjoyed the book for the amount of detail: it made me feel as if I actually was within the walls of this great city around the time of its fall. However, readers should really be aware that this book offers by no means and objective account!
December 25, 2015
The quibble I had with The Sicilian Vespers, the other of Runciman's books I've read, namely that, in his effort to stick to the story he's telling, he skimmed over tangents I wished he'd have more fully pursued, that problem does not exist here. By its very nature, the story of Constantinople's fall is a much more focused one than the story of the many conquests and rebellions that marked medieval Sicily's history. This focus, combined with Runciman's yet again beautiful prose, makes for gripping reading, particularly in the chapters describing the actual siege of the city. In fact, those chapters read like something out of a Holloywood movie. I kept imagining myself adapting the book for a screenplay. Moreover, the book's first chapter is the single best condensed explanation of the split between the Western and Eastern churches, as well as the reasons for their failure to reunite in the years leading up to 1453. I highly recommend.
March 31, 2022
Sir Runciman fue un genio de la narrativa histórica, y esta es probablemente su obra maestra. La tensión dramática del relato lo convierte en un libro que es difícil no leer de un tirón. Por otro lado, su gran prosa es capaz de transmitir vividamente el canto de los ruiseñores en las ruinas de Nueva Roma, la belleza de las princesas de Trebizonda, el silencio en los pasillos del antiguo Palacio Imperial abandonado o el pavoroso estruendo de los monstruosos cañones de Urban. Me ha fascinado la figura quijotesca de Don Francisco de Toledo que creyéndose descendiente de Comnenos, y por tanto, primo de Constantino Paleólogo, decide abandonar Castilla para defender Constantinopla. Allí se hace íntimo amigo del emperador, y junto a él perece en la última carga suicida contra las imparables hordas de jenízaros, cuando todo se perdió.
May 8, 2009
The Fall of Constinonple is in my top 5 saddest historical events. Runciman does an excellent job covering the later history of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of the Islamic forces in the Middle East. He presents all the various ways that the East tried to save themselves--even going so far as to reunify with the Roman Catholic Church. However, Western leaders and peoples were all focused in their own backyards with their own problems as the last of the Roman Empire fell to the Turks.
A timely read for understanding further how the Turks and other Muslims treated the peoples they conquered. Remember this May 29 the loss of the greatest and most beautiful city in all of Christendom.
A timely read for understanding further how the Turks and other Muslims treated the peoples they conquered. Remember this May 29 the loss of the greatest and most beautiful city in all of Christendom.
August 14, 2010
I picked this book up as a result of being mentioned in Volume 2 of "Your Face Tomorrow". It's a pretty good book, but probably a little difficult for anyone not already reasonably versed in the Byzantine Empire. The cast of characters is enormous, esp for a book of only 191 pages. Also, the geography isn't foremost in my mind, as I am a product of the US public school system. If you're like me, be prepared for a little wikipedia research.
The writing is pretty solid, but one annoying tick is Runciman's dearth of commas, which more than once led me to start a sentence, get completely confused, only to clear the fog with a strategically placed comma. All in all, an excellent telling of what amounts to 8 exciting weeks in the spring of 1453.
The writing is pretty solid, but one annoying tick is Runciman's dearth of commas, which more than once led me to start a sentence, get completely confused, only to clear the fog with a strategically placed comma. All in all, an excellent telling of what amounts to 8 exciting weeks in the spring of 1453.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews