What do you think?
Rate this book
Constantinople: The Last Great Siege 1453
In the Spring of 1453, the Ottoman Turks advanced on Constantinople in pursuit of an ancient Islamic dream: the capture of the thousand year-old capital of Christian Byzantium. This text is an intense, extraordinary tale of courage and cruelty, technological ingenuity, endurance and luck.
Hardcover
First published August 10, 2005
843 people are currently reading
16579 people want to read
About the author
Roger Crowley
16 books828 followersRoger Crowley was born in 1951 and spent part of his childhood in Malta. He read English at Cambridge University and taught English in Istanbul, where he developed a strong interest in the history of Turkey. He has traveled widely throughout the Mediterranean basin over many years and has a wide-ranging knowledge of its history and culture. He lives in Gloucestershire, England.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 675 reviews
March 16, 2022
Constantinople, The Last Great Siege 1453, by Roger Crowley is a thoroughly entertaining, rich, detailed, violent, intriguing and riveting story of one of the most significant periods of history.
The results of this period endure to this day.
The author systematically proceeds through this epic story – and thankfully commences with some wonderfully drawn maps of Asia Minor showing the geography of the area which made Constantinople such an important strategic location.
We learn of the origins of this city, which came about when Constantine the Great decided to move the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium which he renamed Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) in around 330 CE. We learn about Constantine’s conversion to Christianity (on his deathbed admittedly – better late than never!!) So letting that sink in, he moved the Capital of the Roman Empire and also started the legitimacy of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Constantine the Great certainly did deserve this moniker – the weight of these two decisions still bear down upon us. The Eastern Roman Empire morphed into the Byzantine Empire.
The Byzantine Empire survived for a thousand years.
Enter Sultan Mehmet II of the Islamic Ottomans. The author outlines the fascinating story of how this fascinating man was raised and how he came to be Sultan, the man who finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantines. Admittedly, the Byzantine Empire was in dramatic decline in the 1400s – but the legendary walls proved a formidable barrier over the centuries and repelled no less than around 23 attempted invasions.
The Byzantines were hidebound by a thousand years of ceremony and tradition, the Ottomans were quick-witted, flexible and open
The author leaves you with the impression the Byzantines were a stodgy bunch, ill-equipped, weighed down by their history and in decline, whereas the Ottomans were fleet footed, the new boys on the block, wealthy, and technologically innovative.
Very importantly, Mehmet engaged a Hungarian Engineer named Orban to make MASSIVE cannons which were fundamental in breaking down the walls during the siege. These monsters could only be fired 5 or 6 times a day and needed to be cooled with olive oil between shots (half ton balls) otherwise the brass barrel would crack. Imagine the thunder these people would have heard with each shot – both defenders and attackers, this was the biggest gun ever made at the time. It must have been terrifying. Incidentally, Orban offered to make these cannons for the Byzantines but Constantine XI couldn’t afford them. These guns were 27ft long, had a diameter of 30in, walls made of Bronze 30in thick and fired balls of stone weighing around half a ton – WOW!!
Note: The first Emperor of the Byzantines was named Constantine (the Great) and his mother was named Helen. Well, the last Byzantine Emperor was also called Constantine (the XI) and his mother was also called Helen. You couldn't make that up!!
The author spends some time detailing the schism between the different schools of thought in Christianity which resulted in Catholicism – based in Rome; and Orthodoxy, based in Constantinople. To me, this was one of my favourite parts of the story and resulted in some real difficulties for Constantine XI when requesting assistance from the Catholic Church in the West. To demonstrate the hardened differences in thinking between Eastern and Western Christianity, Pope Gregory VII said:
”It is far better for a country to be under the rule of Islam than be governed by Christians who refuse to acknowledge the rights of the Catholic Church.
Well, perhaps this is one reason the expected fleet of ships from Venice never arrived in time to assist Constantine XI defend his city.
To further highlight the animosity between these two branches of Christianity, St Mark Eugenicus a 15th Century Greek Orthodox Theologian, highlighted the lack of Christian cohesion when he said:
Flee from the papists as you would from a snake and from the flames of a fire.
One recurring theme in this book is the fact the Ottomans ruled their vassals with remarkable tolerance. Subjects were not compelled to resign their Christian faith and they could worship and pray as they wished (NB: the Ottomans were far from angelic in lots of other ways though).
There was also an interesting arrangement regarding conditions of surrender during a siege. If the defending city refused to surrender they would be subject to 3 days of plunder if they succumbed. In fact, the reward of plunder was a main motivation for many of the Ottoman soldiers – and this they did with gusto. The pages concerning this part of the book described scenes of murder, rape, torture and capturing people for slavery were quite confronting. It must have been horrific.
This battle was brutal.
This book is much more than a story of the invasion of a city. It is a story about 2 great leaders – particularly Mehmet II. You will learn about an emerging empire and a declining one, the author tells of terrific struggles between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Islam. We also get to understand the strategic importance of Constantinople/Istanbul and some of the natural phenomena that make the area so beautiful. We also get to understand some of the challenges this geographical region poses with regards to daily life, and also how this applies to military conflict, and then there’s THOSE CANNONS. The military story is an epic one.
I just loved this book, it was everything I wanted it to be. It has even more whet my appetite to go to Istanbul as soon as this wee little RNA virus decides to start behaving.
I highly recommend this, even if history isn’t really your thing.
5 Stars
The results of this period endure to this day.
The author systematically proceeds through this epic story – and thankfully commences with some wonderfully drawn maps of Asia Minor showing the geography of the area which made Constantinople such an important strategic location.
We learn of the origins of this city, which came about when Constantine the Great decided to move the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium which he renamed Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) in around 330 CE. We learn about Constantine’s conversion to Christianity (on his deathbed admittedly – better late than never!!) So letting that sink in, he moved the Capital of the Roman Empire and also started the legitimacy of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Constantine the Great certainly did deserve this moniker – the weight of these two decisions still bear down upon us. The Eastern Roman Empire morphed into the Byzantine Empire.
The Byzantine Empire survived for a thousand years.
Enter Sultan Mehmet II of the Islamic Ottomans. The author outlines the fascinating story of how this fascinating man was raised and how he came to be Sultan, the man who finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantines. Admittedly, the Byzantine Empire was in dramatic decline in the 1400s – but the legendary walls proved a formidable barrier over the centuries and repelled no less than around 23 attempted invasions.
The Byzantines were hidebound by a thousand years of ceremony and tradition, the Ottomans were quick-witted, flexible and open
The author leaves you with the impression the Byzantines were a stodgy bunch, ill-equipped, weighed down by their history and in decline, whereas the Ottomans were fleet footed, the new boys on the block, wealthy, and technologically innovative.
Very importantly, Mehmet engaged a Hungarian Engineer named Orban to make MASSIVE cannons which were fundamental in breaking down the walls during the siege. These monsters could only be fired 5 or 6 times a day and needed to be cooled with olive oil between shots (half ton balls) otherwise the brass barrel would crack. Imagine the thunder these people would have heard with each shot – both defenders and attackers, this was the biggest gun ever made at the time. It must have been terrifying. Incidentally, Orban offered to make these cannons for the Byzantines but Constantine XI couldn’t afford them. These guns were 27ft long, had a diameter of 30in, walls made of Bronze 30in thick and fired balls of stone weighing around half a ton – WOW!!
Note: The first Emperor of the Byzantines was named Constantine (the Great) and his mother was named Helen. Well, the last Byzantine Emperor was also called Constantine (the XI) and his mother was also called Helen. You couldn't make that up!!
The author spends some time detailing the schism between the different schools of thought in Christianity which resulted in Catholicism – based in Rome; and Orthodoxy, based in Constantinople. To me, this was one of my favourite parts of the story and resulted in some real difficulties for Constantine XI when requesting assistance from the Catholic Church in the West. To demonstrate the hardened differences in thinking between Eastern and Western Christianity, Pope Gregory VII said:
”It is far better for a country to be under the rule of Islam than be governed by Christians who refuse to acknowledge the rights of the Catholic Church.
Well, perhaps this is one reason the expected fleet of ships from Venice never arrived in time to assist Constantine XI defend his city.
To further highlight the animosity between these two branches of Christianity, St Mark Eugenicus a 15th Century Greek Orthodox Theologian, highlighted the lack of Christian cohesion when he said:
Flee from the papists as you would from a snake and from the flames of a fire.
One recurring theme in this book is the fact the Ottomans ruled their vassals with remarkable tolerance. Subjects were not compelled to resign their Christian faith and they could worship and pray as they wished (NB: the Ottomans were far from angelic in lots of other ways though).
There was also an interesting arrangement regarding conditions of surrender during a siege. If the defending city refused to surrender they would be subject to 3 days of plunder if they succumbed. In fact, the reward of plunder was a main motivation for many of the Ottoman soldiers – and this they did with gusto. The pages concerning this part of the book described scenes of murder, rape, torture and capturing people for slavery were quite confronting. It must have been horrific.
This battle was brutal.
This book is much more than a story of the invasion of a city. It is a story about 2 great leaders – particularly Mehmet II. You will learn about an emerging empire and a declining one, the author tells of terrific struggles between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Islam. We also get to understand the strategic importance of Constantinople/Istanbul and some of the natural phenomena that make the area so beautiful. We also get to understand some of the challenges this geographical region poses with regards to daily life, and also how this applies to military conflict, and then there’s THOSE CANNONS. The military story is an epic one.
I just loved this book, it was everything I wanted it to be. It has even more whet my appetite to go to Istanbul as soon as this wee little RNA virus decides to start behaving.
I highly recommend this, even if history isn’t really your thing.
5 Stars
August 3, 2023
"Greeks, Latins, Germans, Hungarians and Czechs from all the Christian countries were on the side of Turks. Oh, the wickedness of denying Christ!"-Archbishop and Eyewitness to the Fall of Constantinople in 1453
“Onward, Christian soldiers! Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus, Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle, See his banners go!”
- English hymn, 1865 chosen by Winston Churchill for his meeting in 1941 with FDR on the battleship Prince of Wales
*************
I had mixed reactions towards this book. It does check all of the boxes: historical outlines of the earlier Byzantine and Ottoman empires, character sketches of main players in the siege, religious and ethnographic background material, and a military-political account at the time of the conquest. Roger Crowley writes clearly and is very popular as a naval history author. He offers simple explanations of the forces at work where there were multiple and complex factors.
The trouble is the conquest was not a 'Clash of Islam and the West' as the title suggests. Holy wars mask political and economic goals. The Fourth Crusade, sent by the Pope to rescue Jerusalem from Muslims, sacked Constantinople's Christians instead in 1204, funding the rise of Venetian and Genoese trading states. More than piety was involved but the irony isn't dwelled upon. That late medieval people were religious is certainly true to a large extent.
Mehmed II became sultan of the Ottoman empire in 1444 at the age of twelve. His father had tried and failed to sieze Constantinople in 1421 and it was a dream of the son as well. By 1453 the empire surrounded the city with Anatolia, the Balkans, and Greece in Muslim hands. Mehmed's first move was to build a fortress on Europe's side of the Bosphorus to control and tax shipping between the Black Sea and Aegean. Constantine XI led the Byzantine Greeks.
Crowley cites the Great Schism of 1054 between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as the reason little help came from Constantine's Christian brethren. The split caused disunity within the city between the supporters and opponents of a reconciliation. A detailed description of three tiered defensive walls and development of artillery for siege warfare is given. The Ottoman military was unmatched in Europe for discipline and efficiency.
One aspect of the Ottoman enterprise that argues against a purely religious sectarianism is pervasive collaboration with Christians. From cannon makers and boat builders to cavalry and infantry the conquest was a multicultural affair. It is likely that Mehmed's mother was European. More than fifty thousand Ottoman soldiers converged on the city from Asia and Europe on Easter Sunday and set camp at the wall. Loot was as great a lure as a place in paradise.
For fifty three days less than ten thousand Byzantine troops defended the twelve mile perimeter. Half were Venetian and Genoese volunteers. A chain stretched across the Golden Horn reduced the line of defense by four miles. Four miles abutted the land where Mehmed's forces were arrayed. His guns were wheeled up, the largest nine meters long firing thirty inch balls. This size cannon hadn't been faced before, offered to but turned down by Byzantium.
The rest can be summarized as what happens when you bring catapults and crossbows to an artillery battle. Parades of holy relics and golden icons on fifty foot walls didn't turn the tide. Medieval chivalry was proffered for surrender and conversion, or pay a head tax, but refused by Constantine. The city was breached and three days of rape and pillage ensued. Thirty thousand were enslaved, half ransomed or released. The Ottomans survived until 1922.
The bulk of the sources are from three Greeks who wrote at or near the time, Kritovoulos, Sphrantzes and Doukas. The Turks left few written records. It is an unusual example of a history written by the conquered. The book is useful for the events of the siege. Military matters are a primary concern and they comprise much of the story. Runciman's 1965 'Fall of Constantinople' may fill in the gaps. There aren't many recent Ottoman histories written in English.
“Onward, Christian soldiers! Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus, Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle, See his banners go!”
- English hymn, 1865 chosen by Winston Churchill for his meeting in 1941 with FDR on the battleship Prince of Wales
*************
I had mixed reactions towards this book. It does check all of the boxes: historical outlines of the earlier Byzantine and Ottoman empires, character sketches of main players in the siege, religious and ethnographic background material, and a military-political account at the time of the conquest. Roger Crowley writes clearly and is very popular as a naval history author. He offers simple explanations of the forces at work where there were multiple and complex factors.
The trouble is the conquest was not a 'Clash of Islam and the West' as the title suggests. Holy wars mask political and economic goals. The Fourth Crusade, sent by the Pope to rescue Jerusalem from Muslims, sacked Constantinople's Christians instead in 1204, funding the rise of Venetian and Genoese trading states. More than piety was involved but the irony isn't dwelled upon. That late medieval people were religious is certainly true to a large extent.
Mehmed II became sultan of the Ottoman empire in 1444 at the age of twelve. His father had tried and failed to sieze Constantinople in 1421 and it was a dream of the son as well. By 1453 the empire surrounded the city with Anatolia, the Balkans, and Greece in Muslim hands. Mehmed's first move was to build a fortress on Europe's side of the Bosphorus to control and tax shipping between the Black Sea and Aegean. Constantine XI led the Byzantine Greeks.
Crowley cites the Great Schism of 1054 between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as the reason little help came from Constantine's Christian brethren. The split caused disunity within the city between the supporters and opponents of a reconciliation. A detailed description of three tiered defensive walls and development of artillery for siege warfare is given. The Ottoman military was unmatched in Europe for discipline and efficiency.
One aspect of the Ottoman enterprise that argues against a purely religious sectarianism is pervasive collaboration with Christians. From cannon makers and boat builders to cavalry and infantry the conquest was a multicultural affair. It is likely that Mehmed's mother was European. More than fifty thousand Ottoman soldiers converged on the city from Asia and Europe on Easter Sunday and set camp at the wall. Loot was as great a lure as a place in paradise.
For fifty three days less than ten thousand Byzantine troops defended the twelve mile perimeter. Half were Venetian and Genoese volunteers. A chain stretched across the Golden Horn reduced the line of defense by four miles. Four miles abutted the land where Mehmed's forces were arrayed. His guns were wheeled up, the largest nine meters long firing thirty inch balls. This size cannon hadn't been faced before, offered to but turned down by Byzantium.
The rest can be summarized as what happens when you bring catapults and crossbows to an artillery battle. Parades of holy relics and golden icons on fifty foot walls didn't turn the tide. Medieval chivalry was proffered for surrender and conversion, or pay a head tax, but refused by Constantine. The city was breached and three days of rape and pillage ensued. Thirty thousand were enslaved, half ransomed or released. The Ottomans survived until 1922.
The bulk of the sources are from three Greeks who wrote at or near the time, Kritovoulos, Sphrantzes and Doukas. The Turks left few written records. It is an unusual example of a history written by the conquered. The book is useful for the events of the siege. Military matters are a primary concern and they comprise much of the story. Runciman's 1965 'Fall of Constantinople' may fill in the gaps. There aren't many recent Ottoman histories written in English.
January 18, 2026
A great read/listen!
While on the short side (about 300 pages), so there was not much room to delve into all the nuances of history, religion, politics and economics, I think Roger Crowley still did a great job, giving us a detailed overview and definitely helping me to put all the events, backdrops, consequences into perspective.
I also found the storytelling nicely balanced, strong points and weaknesses were all listed: the author gave appreciation for both sides when deserved and did not shy away from telling us about the atrocities of all.
The sequence of battles is presented in a very exciting way, with the tactics/strategy and possible mindset of attackers and defenders. There is heroism, cunning, betrayal, determination, fear and petty squabbles. There is cruelty and desperation and awfully high stakes on both sides.
Will certainly check out other books of his.
Good narration by Simon Prebble.
While on the short side (about 300 pages), so there was not much room to delve into all the nuances of history, religion, politics and economics, I think Roger Crowley still did a great job, giving us a detailed overview and definitely helping me to put all the events, backdrops, consequences into perspective.
I also found the storytelling nicely balanced, strong points and weaknesses were all listed: the author gave appreciation for both sides when deserved and did not shy away from telling us about the atrocities of all.
The sequence of battles is presented in a very exciting way, with the tactics/strategy and possible mindset of attackers and defenders. There is heroism, cunning, betrayal, determination, fear and petty squabbles. There is cruelty and desperation and awfully high stakes on both sides.
Will certainly check out other books of his.
Good narration by Simon Prebble.
March 18, 2022
Constantinople was the greatest city of the ancient world.
People beyond the Roman empire called it "The City".
Since its founding many different armies attempted to capture it and failed.
This book produces the vision of a great sand castle built at the edge of the high tide.
Waves of armies flowed towards the castle and retreated.
To the defenders of the city each retreat made them feel that they could repel the next attack.
Sultan Mehmet planned his war against Constantinople with careful detail to every advantage.
Previously city walls had been built to withstand armies and siege weapons.
Now the walls had to face cannon and gunpowder.
An amazing piece of history brought to life.
Enjoy!
People beyond the Roman empire called it "The City".
Since its founding many different armies attempted to capture it and failed.
This book produces the vision of a great sand castle built at the edge of the high tide.
Waves of armies flowed towards the castle and retreated.
To the defenders of the city each retreat made them feel that they could repel the next attack.
Sultan Mehmet planned his war against Constantinople with careful detail to every advantage.
Previously city walls had been built to withstand armies and siege weapons.
Now the walls had to face cannon and gunpowder.
An amazing piece of history brought to life.
Enjoy!
May 21, 2023
In secolul XV Imperiul Bizantin era o umbra a fostului stat. Redus la orasul-capitala si cateva teritorii si cetati imprastiate in Bazinul Mediteraneean, nu castiga suficient pentru a intretine o flota. Imparatul Constantin al XI-lea Paleologul, ultimul imparat, a fost nevoit sa plateasca o corabie catalana ca sa-l transporte de la locul de incoronare din Pelopones la Constantinopol.
Chiar si in aceste conditii, orasul ar fi rezistat mai mult daca n-ar fi fost cresterea semnificativa a puterii de foc a artileriei.
Secolul al XV-lea marcheaza inceputul sfarsitului pentru fortificatiile din piatra.
O lectura captivanta. Batalia propriu-zisa incepe de la pagina 143.
Chiar si in aceste conditii, orasul ar fi rezistat mai mult daca n-ar fi fost cresterea semnificativa a puterii de foc a artileriei.
Secolul al XV-lea marcheaza inceputul sfarsitului pentru fortificatiile din piatra.
O lectura captivanta. Batalia propriu-zisa incepe de la pagina 143.
September 13, 2021
DNF 15%
Огромния интерес, с което си взех книгата, е обратнопропорционален на стойността и откъм исторически детайли. След странния пролог нещата стават безобразно зле. Изплюват се дати и имена без обяснение кой какъв е, откъде е и какво общо има с нашата история. Това тюрки, селджуци, турци, араби - всичко е в казана с пилафа, без да се обяснява нищо за тях, още по-малко какви са разликите и приликите помежду им.
Византийците, доколкото Кроули изобщо ги коментира в детайли, са представени като живи декаденти и даже хлебарите са заети да философстват върху божиите проявления, вместо да си гледат бизнеса. Освен това са и суеверни и приемат превратите и цареубийствата като божия воля за наказание на греховете. И се вайкат за глупости - Никита Хониат, “типично византийски” (цитат) се жалва от западните кръстоносци, опустошили града му, вместо да се бият за вярата в Светите земи. Оставам с впечатление, че Хониат е трябвало да ги похвали. Султаните пък бележат “свръхестествен напредък” (цитат), с такава “лека ръка” (цитат) управляват покореното население, че феодализмът в Европа е крайно порочна практика по сравнение. Освен това са “близо до народа и природата” (пак цитирам). Вероятно тънкият намек е, че византийците не са.
След всичко прочетено дотук, Константинопол просто е обречен да падне и всички причини са ясни от 8-ми век нататък. Даже завладяването му явно е изцяло за добро - с такива славни завоеватели е направо жалко, че не са успели още през 8-ми век при първите си опити. Няма нужда да чета по-нататък и не смятам да го правя.
Излишно е да коментирам колко съм разочарована от Кроули (и от издателството, подбрало това несериозно творение). Хаотични данни в двете изчетени глави, няма анализ или поне детайлизация, твърде крайни, предубедени, порядъчно субективни и схематични трактовки и внушения, които целят да замаскират несвършена работа по изследване и поднасяне на темата. Това дори отдалеч не наподобява историческо изследване. По-скоро сензационен маркетингов продукт за бърза печалба от читатели, за първи път чуващи за обсадата на Константинопол и леко несигурни какво и къде е това, но пък убедени, че звучи яко.
Огромния интерес, с което си взех книгата, е обратнопропорционален на стойността и откъм исторически детайли. След странния пролог нещата стават безобразно зле. Изплюват се дати и имена без обяснение кой какъв е, откъде е и какво общо има с нашата история. Това тюрки, селджуци, турци, араби - всичко е в казана с пилафа, без да се обяснява нищо за тях, още по-малко какви са разликите и приликите помежду им.
Византийците, доколкото Кроули изобщо ги коментира в детайли, са представени като живи декаденти и даже хлебарите са заети да философстват върху божиите проявления, вместо да си гледат бизнеса. Освен това са и суеверни и приемат превратите и цареубийствата като божия воля за наказание на греховете. И се вайкат за глупости - Никита Хониат, “типично византийски” (цитат) се жалва от западните кръстоносци, опустошили града му, вместо да се бият за вярата в Светите земи. Оставам с впечатление, че Хониат е трябвало да ги похвали. Султаните пък бележат “свръхестествен напредък” (цитат), с такава “лека ръка” (цитат) управляват покореното население, че феодализмът в Европа е крайно порочна практика по сравнение. Освен това са “близо до народа и природата” (пак цитирам). Вероятно тънкият намек е, че византийците не са.
След всичко прочетено дотук, Константинопол просто е обречен да падне и всички причини са ясни от 8-ми век нататък. Даже завладяването му явно е изцяло за добро - с такива славни завоеватели е направо жалко, че не са успели още през 8-ми век при първите си опити. Няма нужда да чета по-нататък и не смятам да го правя.
Излишно е да коментирам колко съм разочарована от Кроули (и от издателството, подбрало това несериозно творение). Хаотични данни в двете изчетени глави, няма анализ или поне детайлизация, твърде крайни, предубедени, порядъчно субективни и схематични трактовки и внушения, които целят да замаскират несвършена работа по изследване и поднасяне на темата. Това дори отдалеч не наподобява историческо изследване. По-скоро сензационен маркетингов продукт за бърза печалба от читатели, за първи път чуващи за обсадата на Константинопол и леко несигурни какво и къде е това, но пък убедени, че звучи яко.
June 29, 2017
An eminently readable and detailed account of the May 1453 Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire. I enjoyed this account and learned a lot.
Background to the conflict was presented, then the personalities of the two protagonists, Constantine XI, aged 49, and Mehmet II, a young man of 21. We are taken through the conflict, point by point. There are many quotes from accounts of that period. The Ottomans have swallowed up most of the Byzantine Empire already; and Mehmet thinks of himself as a new Alexander. Instead of heading east, he turns his thoughts to the west, Constantinople being a convenient launching pad to any further conquests. We see preparations for a protracted siege. Mehmet's army is the first professionally paid army since that of the classical Romans. Byzantines, along with Venetian and Genoese enclaves, prepare for defense. Mehmet finds two weak spots in the fortifications and by concentrating on them, after many days, successfully besieges the city. The strong many-layered fortification and water on many sides fail to protect the city. Mehmet uses the classic siege techniques: a fleet, blockade, and most successfully, artillery bombardment with giant cannons. Siege towers, a more sophisticated version of the old Roman viniae fail, as well as tunneling under the walls. The author considers this continued bombardment of the walls "the world's first concerted artillery bombardment." Mehmet's soldiers portaging their fleet overland, since the Golden Horn had been blocked with a boom, was absolutely incredible!! Ancient Greeks had already dragged their ships overland at the diolkos, the Isthmus of Corinth--from Ionian to Aegean Sea or vice versa. As of the present, modern Greece has built a canal.
You have to admire Constantine for refusing to desert his people when he had a chance to escape and for fighting alongside them, although he knew the fight was probably hopeless. Since reading this I have read a fascinating nonfiction biography of Constantine XI: The Immortal Emperor: The Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans.
Attention is given to the superstition, 'portents' and 'prophecies' of the Byzantines. They interpret as bad omens a partial eclipse, St. Elmo's fire on one of the churches and a thick fog rushing in; they feel that these are signs that God has abandoned them. The author conjectures that an island in the Pacific had blown itself up earlier in the year; the bad weather is fallout. The author calls this the "Krakatoa of the Middle Ages." After the defeat, we read about Mehmet's legacy and of subsequent events. The maps of the area and of Constantinople 1453 were very useful and helped me visualize.
Highly recommended.
Background to the conflict was presented, then the personalities of the two protagonists, Constantine XI, aged 49, and Mehmet II, a young man of 21. We are taken through the conflict, point by point. There are many quotes from accounts of that period. The Ottomans have swallowed up most of the Byzantine Empire already; and Mehmet thinks of himself as a new Alexander. Instead of heading east, he turns his thoughts to the west, Constantinople being a convenient launching pad to any further conquests. We see preparations for a protracted siege. Mehmet's army is the first professionally paid army since that of the classical Romans. Byzantines, along with Venetian and Genoese enclaves, prepare for defense. Mehmet finds two weak spots in the fortifications and by concentrating on them, after many days, successfully besieges the city. The strong many-layered fortification and water on many sides fail to protect the city. Mehmet uses the classic siege techniques: a fleet, blockade, and most successfully, artillery bombardment with giant cannons. Siege towers, a more sophisticated version of the old Roman viniae fail, as well as tunneling under the walls. The author considers this continued bombardment of the walls "the world's first concerted artillery bombardment." Mehmet's soldiers portaging their fleet overland, since the Golden Horn had been blocked with a boom, was absolutely incredible!! Ancient Greeks had already dragged their ships overland at the diolkos, the Isthmus of Corinth--from Ionian to Aegean Sea or vice versa. As of the present, modern Greece has built a canal.
You have to admire Constantine for refusing to desert his people when he had a chance to escape and for fighting alongside them, although he knew the fight was probably hopeless. Since reading this I have read a fascinating nonfiction biography of Constantine XI: The Immortal Emperor: The Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans.
Attention is given to the superstition, 'portents' and 'prophecies' of the Byzantines. They interpret as bad omens a partial eclipse, St. Elmo's fire on one of the churches and a thick fog rushing in; they feel that these are signs that God has abandoned them. The author conjectures that an island in the Pacific had blown itself up earlier in the year; the bad weather is fallout. The author calls this the "Krakatoa of the Middle Ages." After the defeat, we read about Mehmet's legacy and of subsequent events. The maps of the area and of Constantinople 1453 were very useful and helped me visualize.
Highly recommended.
December 3, 2021
От векове градът на Константин фокусира завоевателните стремежи на араби, латинци и българи, примамени не само от славата му на изумително богато и красиво място, но и от възможността да установят контрол над ключовите морски и сухоземни пътища, които минават оттам.
Когато младият владетел на османските турци Мехмед II събира огромна сухопътна войска и флот, за да обсади Града в началото на 1453 г., реалността в Константинопол вече е далеч от славната легенда. След хиляда сто двадесет и три години съществуване, след двадесет и три обсади и няколко земетресения, столицата на Източната римска империя е поувяхнала и пообедняла красавица, чиито жители, подобно на упорити ухажори, са готови на всичко, за да не е я дадат в чужди ръце.
От април до края на май 1453 г. пред стените на Града откъм суша и море се разиграва трагедия с древногръцки мащаби. Атакуващата османска армия е олицетворение на модерната войска от нов тип – дисциплинирана, мобилна и бърза, възприела най-новите постижения на обсадното изкуство и усвоила тънкостите при използването барута и артилерията. За нея и нейният водач Мехмед упоритите стени на Константинопол са не просто поредното военно предизвикателство, а въпрос на религиозна чест и лична обсесия.
Защитниците на Града, предимно ромеи и италианци от Венеция и Генуа, имат да губят много повече от обсаждащите ги османци. Със себеотрицание, което далеч надхвърля физическия им брой и материални възможности, жителите на Града и техният последен владетел – трагично-величавият Константин, успяват да сторят максималното, за да предотвратят неизбежното.
Религиозните поверия, фантазми и суеверия заместват липсващите олимпийски богове в тази средновековна Илиада. И в двата лагера вярата като инструмент за психологическа манипулация играе силна роля, когато Градът като символ сам по себе си се окаже недостатъчна мотивация.
Роджър Кроули разказва за последните дни на Константинопол, доближавайки се максимално до художествения разказ. Признава, че в предмодерната история омешването на факти и легенди създава неразрешими главоблъсканици за съвременния историк. Твърде много са обстоятелствата, истината за които едва ли ще научим някога – например точните причини за смъртта на последния ромейски император. Но версията на събитията, към която Кроули се придържа, не ми беше скучна нито за секунда, в нея има и трагика, и поетика, и романтика. Дълбоко оценявам такива книги.
Обсадата на Константинопол е един от онези вълнуващи гранични моменти в историята, в които знанието за развръзката не пречи ни най-малко на съпреживяването. Безброй са епизодите, в които везните се накланят в полза на обсадените и на читателя му се струва, че още малко усилие или късмет, и съдбата ще се обърне и Градът ще бъде спасен. Но дори когато става ясно, че всичко е загубено, това не е краят за Града. За да съградиш отначало, понякога трябва да приемеш факта на разрухата. Започва нов етап за Константинопол-Истанбул – не по-малко славен и бляскав. Но това, както казват, е друга история.
Когато младият владетел на османските турци Мехмед II събира огромна сухопътна войска и флот, за да обсади Града в началото на 1453 г., реалността в Константинопол вече е далеч от славната легенда. След хиляда сто двадесет и три години съществуване, след двадесет и три обсади и няколко земетресения, столицата на Източната римска империя е поувяхнала и пообедняла красавица, чиито жители, подобно на упорити ухажори, са готови на всичко, за да не е я дадат в чужди ръце.
От април до края на май 1453 г. пред стените на Града откъм суша и море се разиграва трагедия с древногръцки мащаби. Атакуващата османска армия е олицетворение на модерната войска от нов тип – дисциплинирана, мобилна и бърза, възприела най-новите постижения на обсадното изкуство и усвоила тънкостите при използването барута и артилерията. За нея и нейният водач Мехмед упоритите стени на Константинопол са не просто поредното военно предизвикателство, а въпрос на религиозна чест и лична обсесия.
Защитниците на Града, предимно ромеи и италианци от Венеция и Генуа, имат да губят много повече от обсаждащите ги османци. Със себеотрицание, което далеч надхвърля физическия им брой и материални възможности, жителите на Града и техният последен владетел – трагично-величавият Константин, успяват да сторят максималното, за да предотвратят неизбежното.
Религиозните поверия, фантазми и суеверия заместват липсващите олимпийски богове в тази средновековна Илиада. И в двата лагера вярата като инструмент за психологическа манипулация играе силна роля, когато Градът като символ сам по себе си се окаже недостатъчна мотивация.
Роджър Кроули разказва за последните дни на Константинопол, доближавайки се максимално до художествения разказ. Признава, че в предмодерната история омешването на факти и легенди създава неразрешими главоблъсканици за съвременния историк. Твърде много са обстоятелствата, истината за които едва ли ще научим някога – например точните причини за смъртта на последния ромейски император. Но версията на събитията, към която Кроули се придържа, не ми беше скучна нито за секунда, в нея има и трагика, и поетика, и романтика. Дълбоко оценявам такива книги.
Обсадата на Константинопол е един от онези вълнуващи гранични моменти в историята, в които знанието за развръзката не пречи ни най-малко на съпреживяването. Безброй са епизодите, в които везните се накланят в полза на обсадените и на читателя му се струва, че още малко усилие или късмет, и съдбата ще се обърне и Градът ще бъде спасен. Но дори когато става ясно, че всичко е загубено, това не е краят за Града. За да съградиш отначало, понякога трябва да приемеш факта на разрухата. Започва нов етап за Константинопол-Истанбул – не по-малко славен и бляскав. Но това, както казват, е друга история.
November 7, 2018
"1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West" by Roger Crowley is an interesting and detailed account of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in the year 1453. From this book I learned many things about this momentous event and recommend it to anyone interested in world history. This is the third book of popular history of Crowley's I have read and it did not disappoint.
One caveat: At times Crowley lets both his admiration of the Ottoman Empire and his dislike of Christendom to mar his account with a lack of impartiality. As long as you know about this defect going in you will be fine.
Notes:
Audiobook:
Narrated by: Simon Prebble
Length: 10 hours and 56 minutes
Unabridged Audiobook
Release date: 2016-08-09
Language: English
Publisher: Hachette Audio
One caveat: At times Crowley lets both his admiration of the Ottoman Empire and his dislike of Christendom to mar his account with a lack of impartiality. As long as you know about this defect going in you will be fine.
Notes:
Audiobook:
Narrated by: Simon Prebble
Length: 10 hours and 56 minutes
Unabridged Audiobook
Release date: 2016-08-09
Language: English
Publisher: Hachette Audio
August 1, 2011
Much of my historical reading often refers to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, but none of it describes the battle itself in any real depth. It seemed to be an important historical turning point as the Middle Ages developed into the Renaissance, and I wanted to learn more about it.
Thanks to Roger Crowley's informative, accessible introduction to the subject, I have a much greater understanding of "the last great siege" not only in terms of its immediate historical context, but also its continuing impact on Muslim/Christian relations (in both religious and political perspectives).
For example, the fall of Constantinople effectively cut off the old trade routes between Europe and Asia - forcing the Europeans to find new routes, thus helping open the door to global exploration, the discovery of the American continent, and so forth.
Crowley could have easily worked in some sort of bias in his narrative, choosing to go soft and politically correct where Islam was concerned or to be overly justifying of the European/Christian perspective. However, he avoids blatantly choosing sides, and to his credit speaks positively and critically of both sides.
I get the feeling that there was much more that contributed to Byzantium's decline and fall than Crowley describes. He seems to brush over the long process of the Eastern Empire's steady loss of territory, its weakening imperial leadership, and other causes of decline. His focus is on Muslim expansion into Europe, the centuries-old obsession with the conquest of Constantinople (which he refers to frequently but does little to explain), and particularly on the role of developing technology (gunpowder and cannons).
He does well in portraying Mehmet (the Ottoman Turk sultan) and Constantine XI (the last "Roman" emperor). Mehmet emerges as an occasionally admirable villain, and Constantine as a tragic hero. So, perhaps Crowley does unwittingly take sides at least in his portrayal of the opposing leaders involved.
I would recommend this book mostly to others interested in various aspects of history. However, I would also recommend it to people interested in learning more about one of history's great turning points that helped shape the modern world.
I doubt any films will be made on this subject, given the current political climate but I do think that screenwriters and filmmakers would do well to begin with this book if they wish to create a great story from history.
Thanks to Roger Crowley's informative, accessible introduction to the subject, I have a much greater understanding of "the last great siege" not only in terms of its immediate historical context, but also its continuing impact on Muslim/Christian relations (in both religious and political perspectives).
For example, the fall of Constantinople effectively cut off the old trade routes between Europe and Asia - forcing the Europeans to find new routes, thus helping open the door to global exploration, the discovery of the American continent, and so forth.
Crowley could have easily worked in some sort of bias in his narrative, choosing to go soft and politically correct where Islam was concerned or to be overly justifying of the European/Christian perspective. However, he avoids blatantly choosing sides, and to his credit speaks positively and critically of both sides.
I get the feeling that there was much more that contributed to Byzantium's decline and fall than Crowley describes. He seems to brush over the long process of the Eastern Empire's steady loss of territory, its weakening imperial leadership, and other causes of decline. His focus is on Muslim expansion into Europe, the centuries-old obsession with the conquest of Constantinople (which he refers to frequently but does little to explain), and particularly on the role of developing technology (gunpowder and cannons).
He does well in portraying Mehmet (the Ottoman Turk sultan) and Constantine XI (the last "Roman" emperor). Mehmet emerges as an occasionally admirable villain, and Constantine as a tragic hero. So, perhaps Crowley does unwittingly take sides at least in his portrayal of the opposing leaders involved.
I would recommend this book mostly to others interested in various aspects of history. However, I would also recommend it to people interested in learning more about one of history's great turning points that helped shape the modern world.
I doubt any films will be made on this subject, given the current political climate but I do think that screenwriters and filmmakers would do well to begin with this book if they wish to create a great story from history.
August 11, 2023
Interesting story of the fall of Constantinople, which is a tale of almost unremitting incompetence on the Byzantine side, abetted by rivalries or even outright warfare between the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches, until the very end, when it was too late for the Vatican to save Constantinople as a Christian city. I wish the author had spent a bit more time on the Eastern Roman Empire which thrived for several hundred years following the collapse of the West.
April 16, 2017
EXCELLENT! (A Review of the Audiobook)
Unabridged Audio Edition Published in 2016 by Hachette Audio and Blackstone Audio
Read by Simon Prebble
Duration: 10 Hours, 56 Minutes
When Rome was at its height it split itself in half and created a second capital for the eastern half in Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). The eastern half survived the official "Fall of Rome" in 476 AD and continued on for nearly 1,000 more years until it succumbed to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. It was the seat of the Orthodox Christian Church and oftentimes stood as the bulwark against Muslim military advances into Eastern Europe.
From the time of the first formal attack against Constantinople in 674 AD until it finally fell in 1453, the capture of this city was, at the least, on every Muslim leader in this region's "to do" list, if not an active goal.
Once the Ottoman Turks arrive on the scene the Byzantine Empire is clearly on its last legs. The city is still defended by one of the most elaborate set of walls ever built and its history and architecture are truly amazing. But, its glory days are long gone. The city has sold a lot of its treasures to defend itself. Its territorial holdings, at one point, included a majority of the territory of the Roman Empire. By 14523 it only held a part of modern Greece and the territory immediately around the walled city.
The Ottomans, in contrast, were an Empire on the rise and they understood that the capture of Constantinople offered great strategic, economic and symbolic value.
This is a book that could have truly been horrible. We've all had that professor or teacher or book that takes the most exciting parts of history and drains all of the joy from the learning experience and leaves behind a dry, lifeless exercise in tedium.
This book had all of the hallmarks of that experience.
1. Medieval battle? Check.
2. The Byzantine Empire, whose very name is literally synonymous in English with being unnecessarily complicated? Check.
3. Multiple religious traditions that most American readers know little about? Check (Islam) and check (Orthodox Christianity).
However, Roger Crowley's history is almost always highly entertaining and informative. He paints vivid word pictures of the battles and they come off much more like the epic struggles depicted in a Tolkien novel than the a dry recitation of facts. He introduces new historical figures and makes them feel like real people.
Constantine XI, the Byzantine Emperor comes to life as an ...
Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2017/...
Unabridged Audio Edition Published in 2016 by Hachette Audio and Blackstone Audio
Read by Simon Prebble
Duration: 10 Hours, 56 Minutes
When Rome was at its height it split itself in half and created a second capital for the eastern half in Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). The eastern half survived the official "Fall of Rome" in 476 AD and continued on for nearly 1,000 more years until it succumbed to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. It was the seat of the Orthodox Christian Church and oftentimes stood as the bulwark against Muslim military advances into Eastern Europe.
From the time of the first formal attack against Constantinople in 674 AD until it finally fell in 1453, the capture of this city was, at the least, on every Muslim leader in this region's "to do" list, if not an active goal.
Once the Ottoman Turks arrive on the scene the Byzantine Empire is clearly on its last legs. The city is still defended by one of the most elaborate set of walls ever built and its history and architecture are truly amazing. But, its glory days are long gone. The city has sold a lot of its treasures to defend itself. Its territorial holdings, at one point, included a majority of the territory of the Roman Empire. By 14523 it only held a part of modern Greece and the territory immediately around the walled city.
The Ottomans, in contrast, were an Empire on the rise and they understood that the capture of Constantinople offered great strategic, economic and symbolic value.
This is a book that could have truly been horrible. We've all had that professor or teacher or book that takes the most exciting parts of history and drains all of the joy from the learning experience and leaves behind a dry, lifeless exercise in tedium.
This book had all of the hallmarks of that experience.
1. Medieval battle? Check.
2. The Byzantine Empire, whose very name is literally synonymous in English with being unnecessarily complicated? Check.
3. Multiple religious traditions that most American readers know little about? Check (Islam) and check (Orthodox Christianity).
However, Roger Crowley's history is almost always highly entertaining and informative. He paints vivid word pictures of the battles and they come off much more like the epic struggles depicted in a Tolkien novel than the a dry recitation of facts. He introduces new historical figures and makes them feel like real people.
Constantine XI, the Byzantine Emperor comes to life as an ...
Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2017/...
March 7, 2016
This book more-or-less delivers what it promises: an account of the siege and fall of Constantinople in 1453. Due to the limits of historical record it is understandably told primarily from a few sources (mainly those of the defenders) a shortcoming the author acknowledges. Its a fine book for what its worth, written in clear prose. As all reviews are somewhat subjective I must confess that I found it to be lacking in some way....perhaps in "urgency." Nonetheless, its an important book for history lovers as well as those who love Istanbul.
July 11, 2023
This book tells the sad and epic story of the Siege of Constantinople in 1453. This siege saw the Greek successors of the Roman Empire led by Constantine XI, together with their Italian and Turkish allies, defend their capital against a large Ottoman army led by Mehmet II. The impressive Theodosian walls had defended Constantinople for centuries against many different invaders, including Arabs, Bulgars, Avars, Slavs, and Turks. However, the situation was different in 1453 when the huge Ottoman army besieged the heavily outnumbered defenders. The city was a shadow of its former self, with buildings falling into decay and the Byzantine Empire only holding on to the city itself and some territory in Greece. Additionally, the developments in the field of artillery, gunpowder, and the creation of massive cannons gave the Ottomans the ability to finally deal with the strong Theodosian walls of Constantinople.
'"But how can I do this and leave the clergy, the churches of God, the empire and all of the people? What will the world think of me, I pray, tell me? No, my lords, no: I will die here with you." Falling he bowed to them and cried in grief. The patriarch and all of the people present started to weep.'
- Constantine XI responding to the offer of escaping from the city.
The tale of the siege is tragic, having many dramatic moments, shocks, 'miracles', and disasters. The hopeless situation of the defenders, that waited for reinforcements that never arrived while barely managing to defend the entirety of the walls with their few men available made for a grim read. The defenders fought bravely, but finally, on the 29th of May 1453, the Ottoman troops broke through the defences. The last Roman Emperor, Constantine XI, died defending the city. Terror swept through the streets when it became clear that the city was lost. Thousands of people were massacred, raped, and enslaved. Houses and churches were looted, desecrated, and destroyed. Several Roman monuments such as the bronze statue of Justinian I were destroyed and melted down. This was the final fall of the Roman Empire.
Roger Crowley did an exemplary job with this book. The writing is simply amazing and sometimes just outright beautiful and poetic. Not only is it written in a great way, but it is also written in a very engaging way, making it so that I could easily read big chunks of this book in one go. The exciting events of the book certainly helped with that as well. While it is not a very academic book, I still think it tells the story of the siege and the events leading up to it very well. Crowley is great at telling the story of the siege but also the individual stories of people such as the brave Genoese nobleman Giustiniani, that came to Constantinople voluntarily with some troops. The sources used are also very interesting, with the Fall of Constantinople being one of the few instances in time where "history was written by the losers", as most of the sources we have on the siege are from the Christians. Crowley still does a great job at telling both sides of the story and showing the siege from more perspectives.
This is truly one of my favourite books and its contents and the manner of writing make it that I recommend this book to everyone, even to those that don't like history so much. Definitely deserves five stars!
'"But how can I do this and leave the clergy, the churches of God, the empire and all of the people? What will the world think of me, I pray, tell me? No, my lords, no: I will die here with you." Falling he bowed to them and cried in grief. The patriarch and all of the people present started to weep.'
- Constantine XI responding to the offer of escaping from the city.
The tale of the siege is tragic, having many dramatic moments, shocks, 'miracles', and disasters. The hopeless situation of the defenders, that waited for reinforcements that never arrived while barely managing to defend the entirety of the walls with their few men available made for a grim read. The defenders fought bravely, but finally, on the 29th of May 1453, the Ottoman troops broke through the defences. The last Roman Emperor, Constantine XI, died defending the city. Terror swept through the streets when it became clear that the city was lost. Thousands of people were massacred, raped, and enslaved. Houses and churches were looted, desecrated, and destroyed. Several Roman monuments such as the bronze statue of Justinian I were destroyed and melted down. This was the final fall of the Roman Empire.
Roger Crowley did an exemplary job with this book. The writing is simply amazing and sometimes just outright beautiful and poetic. Not only is it written in a great way, but it is also written in a very engaging way, making it so that I could easily read big chunks of this book in one go. The exciting events of the book certainly helped with that as well. While it is not a very academic book, I still think it tells the story of the siege and the events leading up to it very well. Crowley is great at telling the story of the siege but also the individual stories of people such as the brave Genoese nobleman Giustiniani, that came to Constantinople voluntarily with some troops. The sources used are also very interesting, with the Fall of Constantinople being one of the few instances in time where "history was written by the losers", as most of the sources we have on the siege are from the Christians. Crowley still does a great job at telling both sides of the story and showing the siege from more perspectives.
This is truly one of my favourite books and its contents and the manner of writing make it that I recommend this book to everyone, even to those that don't like history so much. Definitely deserves five stars!
October 22, 2007
This book was very enjoyable, narrative, and engaging effort to explain what is perhaps one of the most facinating and famous clashes of all time. The author took efforts to make the reader understand not only the personalities of the conflict, but the atmosphere and environs in which the events took place. The result is a clear and consise history, with every effort made to remain unbaised and retain historical details, without completely sacrificing the story itself. It is certainly not a boring play-by-play of the seige.
If you are not generally familiar with the Ottomans or the Byzantine Empire, you might want to read a few online sources before reading this book.
My only complaint was that, in an effort to make the text readable for the average person and more narrative in general, the author does not cite sources, but includes a chapter on original sources at the end.
If you are not generally familiar with the Ottomans or the Byzantine Empire, you might want to read a few online sources before reading this book.
My only complaint was that, in an effort to make the text readable for the average person and more narrative in general, the author does not cite sources, but includes a chapter on original sources at the end.
October 11, 2021
Краят на една империя, началото на следващата: http://knigolandia.info/book-review/1...
Кроули започва своята история с предишните мюсюлмански обсади на града, които “оставят богато наследство от мюсюлмански митове и фолклорни сюжети, които се предават от поколение на поколение през следващите векове”. “Византия е не само последната наследница на Римската империя, тя е също така първата християнска държава”, пише той, и пространно описва как нейната столица е съградена да отразява триумфа на монотеистичната религия в прослава на Исус. Това обаче върви ръка за ръка не просто с фанатична религиозност, но и с придружаващо суеверие и фатализъм, които са особено обострени в последните мигове на някога могъщата държава.
Издателство "Изток-Запад"
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/1...
Кроули започва своята история с предишните мюсюлмански обсади на града, които “оставят богато наследство от мюсюлмански митове и фолклорни сюжети, които се предават от поколение на поколение през следващите векове”. “Византия е не само последната наследница на Римската империя, тя е също така първата християнска държава”, пише той, и пространно описва как нейната столица е съградена да отразява триумфа на монотеистичната религия в прослава на Исус. Това обаче върви ръка за ръка не просто с фанатична религиозност, но и с придружаващо суеверие и фатализъм, които са особено обострени в последните мигове на някога могъщата държава.
Издателство "Изток-Запад"
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/1...
October 12, 2015
good account, fast and gripping; entertaining enough (and offering a good mixture of familiar and new)
November 22, 2019
Kezdjük azzal, hogy Crowley még mindig eszméletlenül jól ír, az angolszász epikus történettudomány zászlóshajója ő, aki ráadásul hiányszakmában dolgozik: a XV-XVI. századi Mediterráneum a szakterülete. Szeressük őt, olvassuk őt. Fél csillag levonást azért kap, hogy érzékeltessem, azért az előző könyve mégis jobban tetszett, de ennek oka pusztán dramaturgiai - azon túl, hogy nem azok nyertek, akinek drukkoltam. Amíg ugyanis a Tengeri birodalmak-ban nagyhatalmak feszültek egymásnak, így a végkimenetel kétesélyes volt, addig Konstantinápoly ostroma, valljuk meg, lefutott meccs. Hisz mire is mehetett volna a hatalmas Bizáncból hagyott utolsó falatka a korszak legszervezettebb, legmotiváltabb hadseregével, az oszmánnal, mégpedig úgy, hogy azok immár minden oldalról körbevették őt? Ráadásul a nyugati kereszténység ebben a periódusban nem mindig tudta eldönteni, hogy kiket utál jobban, az ortodoxokat vagy a muzulmánokat, így segítségnyújtásuk tényleg csak a szép halálra volt elég. Ahogy az (ismét remek) utószó is kiemeli, Konstantinápoly bukása inkább szimbolikus esemény volt, mint történelmi sarokpont – a város létezése addig sem zavarta a törököket abban, hogy tőle több száz kilométerre nyugatra hadakozzanak a magyarokkal. Nem az volt a kérdés, hogy elfoglalják-e, hanem hogy mikor – az akadályok pedig nem is annyira a védők és védőfalak potenciájából fakadtak, hanem a logisztikai jellegű problémákból: hogy az ostromlóknak sikerül-e megfelelő mennyiségű táplálékot biztosítani a seregnek, hogy ne kelljen egymást megenniük, illetve megfelelő higiéniai körülményeket teremteni, hogy ne egye meg őket valami járvány.
Mindettől eltekintve Crowley a maga intenzív stílusában ismét mindent megtesz, hogy súlyt adjon az eseményeknek. Könyve betekintést nyújt az oszmán hadigépezet működésébe éppúgy, mint a várostromok strukturális átalakulásába – ekkortájt tudtak ugyanis az ágyúk olyan fegyverré válni, hogy valóra válthatták Kőműves Kelemen minden rémálmát*. Szóval bővelkedik e kötet számos elemben, ami miatt érdemes kézbe venni, ha valaki a huszadik századnál messzebbre akar kitekinteni a történelemben.
* És ebben is egy magyar mester járt az élen, jegyezzük meg – ő öntötte a legbrutálisabb ágyúkat a próféta seregének. Ha ő nem lett volna, nehezebben boldogult volna az ébredő kelet a haldokló nyugattal. De nem merem leírni a nevét, mert elveszik a kutatóhálózataimat.
Mindettől eltekintve Crowley a maga intenzív stílusában ismét mindent megtesz, hogy súlyt adjon az eseményeknek. Könyve betekintést nyújt az oszmán hadigépezet működésébe éppúgy, mint a várostromok strukturális átalakulásába – ekkortájt tudtak ugyanis az ágyúk olyan fegyverré válni, hogy valóra válthatták Kőműves Kelemen minden rémálmát*. Szóval bővelkedik e kötet számos elemben, ami miatt érdemes kézbe venni, ha valaki a huszadik századnál messzebbre akar kitekinteni a történelemben.
* És ebben is egy magyar mester járt az élen, jegyezzük meg – ő öntötte a legbrutálisabb ágyúkat a próféta seregének. Ha ő nem lett volna, nehezebben boldogult volna az ébredő kelet a haldokló nyugattal. De nem merem leírni a nevét, mert elveszik a kutatóhálózataimat.
June 25, 2018
The Good: Detailed narrative account of the Battle of Constantinople. The author reconstructs the day-to-day machinations of the armies and the shifts in mood and morale of the Ottomans and Byzantines very well. The best parts are the opening chapters that describe the declining Byzantine power and the rising Ottoman power, as well as the technology that was responsible in creating giant brass cannons that would be crucial for breaking the famed walls of the city.
The Bad: Beyond the two central personalities of Mehmet II and Constantine XI, the author leaves something to be desired about who other figures as Zaganos Pasha were and their information, beyond simple biographic details is not mentioned. I would have liked to learn what people around Mehmet were thinking or doing. The army is portrayed as one giant mass of soldiers whereas it would have been a mixture of different motivations and psychologies.
The Ugly: The author is subtlety sympathetic to and biased in favor of the Byzantine defenders. This is not bad in and of itself , however, his bias mars the last few chapters starting from the beginning of the final charge into the city. When describing the sack of the City and the rout of the defenders, the author exclusively relies on exaggerated Greek and Venetian accounts, which were no doubt produced to induce angry sentiment at the time in face of the loss of a hugely symbolic Christian capital. That the author couldn't even be bothered to reconcile the accounts of the Ottoman historians (even if they were later written) to the bloodbath portrayed by the Christian ones shows how the author, as a historic writer, is not concerned with finding what probably happened. He rather equates the 1453 battle on the same level of destruction and cruelty as the earlier "sacks" of the city which is laughable considering Mehmet II gave the promise of security to the Christians living in the city who didn't bear arms against him.
All in all, it's a good book for the first half. The second half is dragged down by incredible bias and incompetence by the author.
The Bad: Beyond the two central personalities of Mehmet II and Constantine XI, the author leaves something to be desired about who other figures as Zaganos Pasha were and their information, beyond simple biographic details is not mentioned. I would have liked to learn what people around Mehmet were thinking or doing. The army is portrayed as one giant mass of soldiers whereas it would have been a mixture of different motivations and psychologies.
The Ugly: The author is subtlety sympathetic to and biased in favor of the Byzantine defenders. This is not bad in and of itself , however, his bias mars the last few chapters starting from the beginning of the final charge into the city. When describing the sack of the City and the rout of the defenders, the author exclusively relies on exaggerated Greek and Venetian accounts, which were no doubt produced to induce angry sentiment at the time in face of the loss of a hugely symbolic Christian capital. That the author couldn't even be bothered to reconcile the accounts of the Ottoman historians (even if they were later written) to the bloodbath portrayed by the Christian ones shows how the author, as a historic writer, is not concerned with finding what probably happened. He rather equates the 1453 battle on the same level of destruction and cruelty as the earlier "sacks" of the city which is laughable considering Mehmet II gave the promise of security to the Christians living in the city who didn't bear arms against him.
All in all, it's a good book for the first half. The second half is dragged down by incredible bias and incompetence by the author.
June 21, 2023
This book is a dramatically recounted narrative history of the fall of Constantinople in 1453. I appreciated the way the book provided context including the role of Byzantium, its withering away, the rise of the Ottomans and, at the end, consequences describing the fallout over the years and centuries of the fall of Constantinople. The bulk of the book is military history: how artillery changed siege warfare, how the navy operated at the time, and the most novel and interesting, the dueling war of sappers digging tunnels into Constantinople and counter-sappers trying to deduct those tunnels and destroy them, ideally killing the sappers in the process. It also has a certain amount of political history and context, especially on the Christian side with the role--or lack thereof--of Venice, Genoa, the Pope, and other Christian states. All of which moves along in a brisk and entertaining manner.
Like narrative histories the author often speculates--without being clear that he is doing so--about the mindset of various characters and lends drama wherever he can to an, admittedly, rather dramatic event. At times he seems happy to pass along anything that is too-good-to-check but at other times he is very careful about the sources, applying a discount based on the biases and distance from the event of some of the chroniclers.
The book is well served by the many quotes from contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous accounts that give you a fuller understanding of the perspectives of those involved, although most of this is on the Byzantine side (an author's note states that primary sources from the Ottoman perspective are few and far between).
I also appreciated the the book emphasized the multiculturalism of both sides, did not paper over the brutality, but also understood the role that propaganda has played in some accounts of it.
Overall, highly recommended if this topic interests you--and you want a slice of world history with particularly vivid details about the moment-by-moment events of a few months of military preparations and battle in that history.
Like narrative histories the author often speculates--without being clear that he is doing so--about the mindset of various characters and lends drama wherever he can to an, admittedly, rather dramatic event. At times he seems happy to pass along anything that is too-good-to-check but at other times he is very careful about the sources, applying a discount based on the biases and distance from the event of some of the chroniclers.
The book is well served by the many quotes from contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous accounts that give you a fuller understanding of the perspectives of those involved, although most of this is on the Byzantine side (an author's note states that primary sources from the Ottoman perspective are few and far between).
I also appreciated the the book emphasized the multiculturalism of both sides, did not paper over the brutality, but also understood the role that propaganda has played in some accounts of it.
Overall, highly recommended if this topic interests you--and you want a slice of world history with particularly vivid details about the moment-by-moment events of a few months of military preparations and battle in that history.
March 4, 2025
Около средата изброяването на факти доскучава, но предвид противоречащата информация от историческите извори, мисля, че Роджър Кроули се е справил блестящо със задачата да поднесе разбираемо и същевременно информативно една от великите обсади в човешката история. След време с удоволствие ще прочета и книгата на сър Стивън Рънсиман. Отворен съм и към други предложения.
Read
August 7, 2011Saya enggan memberikan bintang kepada buku ini, kerana tidak pasti perasaan saya terhadapnya. Walaupun mendapat pujian tinggi melangit, walaupun disebut-sebut sebagai buku pilhan USA Today dan San Fransisco Chronicle, itu semua kerana mereka anti-Islam.
Pada peringkat awal dan pertengahan, buku ini seolah-olah ditulis dengan sudut pandangan yang seimbang - kononnya tidak terlalu bersifat orientalis, mahupun pro Al-Fatih. Namun setelah diteliti - ditimbang dan diukur dari kaca mata saya sebagai seorang muslim, sungguh, penulisnya, Roger Crowley, bias dan tidak menyemak betul-betul kesahihan fakta yang disumbatkan ke dalam bukunya, yang melukiskan imej negatif dan berbaur fitnah untuk Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih.
Contoh:
1. Seperti biasa, asalkan ada pemimpin Islam yang ulung memimpin kerajaan Islam yang gemilang, pemimpinnya akan dilabel kaki perempuan, ataupun gay. Dalam buku ini di halaman 54, Al-Fatih dikatakan seorang biseksual.
2. Sultan Muhammad II ini dikatakan percaya tahyul dan sangat dipengaruhi ahli nujum.
Sebuah kota yang kekebalannya tidak dapat diruntuhkan sehingga beberapa kurun, akhirnya dijatuhkan oleh seorang sultan yang salih, yang tidak pernah tinggal solat tahajjud sejak akil baligh, yang sering merujuk kepada gurunya yang ternyata orang alim lagi warak, dibayangkan oleh Rasulullah S.A.W. "sebaik-baik sultan", dikatakan percayakan perkara tahyul?! Duh.
3. Pasukan Janissari yang diceritakan oleh Crowley, terdiri daripada tentera upahan yang sama ada masih menganut Kristian ataupun memeluk agama Islam secara paksa - satu gambaran negatif untuk tentera yang disebutkan oleh Rasulullah S.A.W. "sebaik-baik tentera".
Malah tidak cukup dengan fitnah ini, enggan memperakui kehebatan strategi peperangan Al-Fatih, Crowley meneruskan cerita karutnya dengan menyatakan setelah Mehmet II kehabisan tenaga tentera, pasukan tentera pengawal khasnya, pasukan Janissari, dihantar sebagai usaha terakhir membantai tentera pihak bertahan yang masih bersisa di Constantinople.
Point penting yang perlu diingat di sini ialah, Al-Fatih membentuk strategi serangan 3 lapisan tentera. Pasukan infantri yang berada di barisan pertama bertujuan memberi asakan untuk mengurangkan kekuatan pertahanan Constantine. Barisan kedua yang lebih hebat daripada barisan pertama adalah untuk meneruskan serangan barisan pertama tadi, dengan kerosakan yang lebih besar terhadap kubu pertahanan musuh. Yang terakhir dan yang terhandal, sudah tentulah untuk melumpuhkan secara total pertahanan kota kebal itu, lantas menaklukinya. Taktik ini samalah macam kita bermain catur. Duh.
Tak cukup dengan cemuhan ini, Crowley membayangkan kekejaman tentera Islam: memperkosa wanita, membunuh bayi, dan berebut harta rampasan perang sesama mereka. Hello, that spells exactly like your Crusades, and the Serbs in their ethnic-cleansing mission, stupid.
Kesimpulannya, sentiasalah imbangi bahan bacaan kita apabila membaca sejarah Islam: yang pro Islam dan diambil daripada sumber sahih dan primer, dan pandangan orientalis yang nampaknya selesa dan berasa cukup dengan rujukan bahan sekunder.
Pada peringkat awal dan pertengahan, buku ini seolah-olah ditulis dengan sudut pandangan yang seimbang - kononnya tidak terlalu bersifat orientalis, mahupun pro Al-Fatih. Namun setelah diteliti - ditimbang dan diukur dari kaca mata saya sebagai seorang muslim, sungguh, penulisnya, Roger Crowley, bias dan tidak menyemak betul-betul kesahihan fakta yang disumbatkan ke dalam bukunya, yang melukiskan imej negatif dan berbaur fitnah untuk Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih.
Contoh:
1. Seperti biasa, asalkan ada pemimpin Islam yang ulung memimpin kerajaan Islam yang gemilang, pemimpinnya akan dilabel kaki perempuan, ataupun gay. Dalam buku ini di halaman 54, Al-Fatih dikatakan seorang biseksual.
2. Sultan Muhammad II ini dikatakan percaya tahyul dan sangat dipengaruhi ahli nujum.
Sebuah kota yang kekebalannya tidak dapat diruntuhkan sehingga beberapa kurun, akhirnya dijatuhkan oleh seorang sultan yang salih, yang tidak pernah tinggal solat tahajjud sejak akil baligh, yang sering merujuk kepada gurunya yang ternyata orang alim lagi warak, dibayangkan oleh Rasulullah S.A.W. "sebaik-baik sultan", dikatakan percayakan perkara tahyul?! Duh.
3. Pasukan Janissari yang diceritakan oleh Crowley, terdiri daripada tentera upahan yang sama ada masih menganut Kristian ataupun memeluk agama Islam secara paksa - satu gambaran negatif untuk tentera yang disebutkan oleh Rasulullah S.A.W. "sebaik-baik tentera".
Malah tidak cukup dengan fitnah ini, enggan memperakui kehebatan strategi peperangan Al-Fatih, Crowley meneruskan cerita karutnya dengan menyatakan setelah Mehmet II kehabisan tenaga tentera, pasukan tentera pengawal khasnya, pasukan Janissari, dihantar sebagai usaha terakhir membantai tentera pihak bertahan yang masih bersisa di Constantinople.
Point penting yang perlu diingat di sini ialah, Al-Fatih membentuk strategi serangan 3 lapisan tentera. Pasukan infantri yang berada di barisan pertama bertujuan memberi asakan untuk mengurangkan kekuatan pertahanan Constantine. Barisan kedua yang lebih hebat daripada barisan pertama adalah untuk meneruskan serangan barisan pertama tadi, dengan kerosakan yang lebih besar terhadap kubu pertahanan musuh. Yang terakhir dan yang terhandal, sudah tentulah untuk melumpuhkan secara total pertahanan kota kebal itu, lantas menaklukinya. Taktik ini samalah macam kita bermain catur. Duh.
Tak cukup dengan cemuhan ini, Crowley membayangkan kekejaman tentera Islam: memperkosa wanita, membunuh bayi, dan berebut harta rampasan perang sesama mereka. Hello, that spells exactly like your Crusades, and the Serbs in their ethnic-cleansing mission, stupid.
Kesimpulannya, sentiasalah imbangi bahan bacaan kita apabila membaca sejarah Islam: yang pro Islam dan diambil daripada sumber sahih dan primer, dan pandangan orientalis yang nampaknya selesa dan berasa cukup dengan rujukan bahan sekunder.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
March 2, 2024The fall of Constantinople is one of those historical events that had long captured my imagination. Tragic, climatic enough to mark the end of the medieval era (at least by some accounts), and full of haunting what-ifs, it's one of those unforgettable pieces of history, and this book did a good job covering it in detail.
November 9, 2020
從東西教會結的樑子、各國事前事後的反應、雙方事前準備、拜占庭式邏輯、城防、武器到戰術等很順的講到結尾
算是相當易讀的書
當然如過事前知道附近地名的話，讀起來會更輕鬆
我原先知道這是大炮發威的一場戰役，且攻下的時間相當短(相較於圍城)
就以為土耳其打的挺輕鬆
原來是打到再不攻下來就要被逼退的程度了
--
以簡轉繁的書籍之中，本書處理的接近完美
留意到的破綻是「借此」，讓我起疑心去查了一下譯者國籍
雖然字義上好像不算錯但台灣習慣上是用「藉此」
--
如果有機會去土耳其
好想參觀聖索菲亞大教堂以及附近例如蘇萊曼清真寺的大型清真寺啊
算是相當易讀的書
當然如過事前知道附近地名的話，讀起來會更輕鬆
我原先知道這是大炮發威的一場戰役，且攻下的時間相當短(相較於圍城)
就以為土耳其打的挺輕鬆
原來是打到再不攻下來就要被逼退的程度了
--
以簡轉繁的書籍之中，本書處理的接近完美
留意到的破綻是「借此」，讓我起疑心去查了一下譯者國籍
雖然字義上好像不算錯但台灣習慣上是用「藉此」
--
如果有機會去土耳其
好想參觀聖索菲亞大教堂以及附近例如蘇萊曼清真寺的大型清真寺啊
February 12, 2019
190212改為kobo繁體版
--
跟上一本新書同為英國史家所寫的"1453：君士坦丁堡之戰"比不太出差異
同樣文筆流暢
翻譯也翻得挺好
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?
--
跟上一本新書同為英國史家所寫的"1453：君士坦丁堡之戰"比不太出差異
同樣文筆流暢
翻譯也翻得挺好
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?
November 7, 2021
Ако не бяха двете слабости, които ще изложа по-долу, бих дал на книгата три звезди. Какво ме накара обаче да дам само една:
1. Една неприятна тенденция, която наблюдавам през последните години. Не знам дали така се случва, че попадам само на такива книги, но масово в историческите съчинения на автори от Западна Европа, които са посветени на теми от историята на Източна Европа и по-конкретно Балканите, виждам една, меко казано, смущаваща незапознатост с историята на българите и тяхното участие като фактор в разглежданите събития. Обикновено или изобщо не се споменава нищо за нас, или ако все пак ни е отделено някакво място, то е със стойността на бележка под линия или едно изречение в основния текст, чието внушение е за незначителността ни. Конкретен пример от настоящата книга - авторът има добрата идея да ни запознае с предходните мюсюлмански обсади на Константинопол. Разбира се, отделено е внимание на най-значимата от тях до 1453 г. - тази от 717/718 година. Участието на българите в нея и помощта им срещу арабите в текста е сведено до едно изречение на страница 24, според което: "по същото време Лъв, чиято решителност и лукавство изглеждат неизчерпаеми, започва преговори с българите езичници и успява да ги убеди да нападнат "неверниците" пред стените на Града." Доста скромно описание на участието във войната на съюзническа армия, от която, по думи на самите араби, обсаждащите са се страхували повече, отколкото от ромеите зад стените на града. Интересно ми е каква е причината за това отношение - дали е просто липса на задълбочени познания, което е лошо или е пренебрежение, което е още по-лошо. Независимо какъв е отговорът, няма как да оценя виско труд, който има такъв сериозен недостатък.
2. Липсата на анализ на събитията и фактите. Авторът е сглобил разказ за случилото се през пролетта на 1453 г., но не отива по-далеч. Описват се фактологически отделните етапи на обсадата и важните събития от нея, но нищо повече. Няма разсъждения, няма анализ, няма представяне на собствена гледна точка за случилото се.
1. Една неприятна тенденция, която наблюдавам през последните години. Не знам дали така се случва, че попадам само на такива книги, но масово в историческите съчинения на автори от Западна Европа, които са посветени на теми от историята на Източна Европа и по-конкретно Балканите, виждам една, меко казано, смущаваща незапознатост с историята на българите и тяхното участие като фактор в разглежданите събития. Обикновено или изобщо не се споменава нищо за нас, или ако все пак ни е отделено някакво място, то е със стойността на бележка под линия или едно изречение в основния текст, чието внушение е за незначителността ни. Конкретен пример от настоящата книга - авторът има добрата идея да ни запознае с предходните мюсюлмански обсади на Константинопол. Разбира се, отделено е внимание на най-значимата от тях до 1453 г. - тази от 717/718 година. Участието на българите в нея и помощта им срещу арабите в текста е сведено до едно изречение на страница 24, според което: "по същото време Лъв, чиято решителност и лукавство изглеждат неизчерпаеми, започва преговори с българите езичници и успява да ги убеди да нападнат "неверниците" пред стените на Града." Доста скромно описание на участието във войната на съюзническа армия, от която, по думи на самите араби, обсаждащите са се страхували повече, отколкото от ромеите зад стените на града. Интересно ми е каква е причината за това отношение - дали е просто липса на задълбочени познания, което е лошо или е пренебрежение, което е още по-лошо. Независимо какъв е отговорът, няма как да оценя виско труд, който има такъв сериозен недостатък.
2. Липсата на анализ на събитията и фактите. Авторът е сглобил разказ за случилото се през пролетта на 1453 г., но не отива по-далеч. Описват се фактологически отделните етапи на обсадата и важните събития от нея, но нищо повече. Няма разсъждения, няма анализ, няма представяне на собствена гледна точка за случилото се.
January 25, 2020
1453：君士坦丁堡的陷落-羅傑‧克勞利。君士坦丁堡是伊斯蘭教和基督教���漫長鬥爭中的最前線。在這裡，不同的宗教信仰在戰爭與和平中對抗了八百年。一四五三年的春天，兩大一神教將在這歷史性的時刻，在君士坦丁堡，產生激烈的碰撞。-摘自序章:紅蘋果。
--------------------------------------
中文的標題雖然有種史詩的激昂，但多少背離了作者的原意...羅傑‧克勞利在伊斯蘭教與基督教雙方的文獻中盡可能的維持中立，所以其實原文的標題應該是接近序章的結尾:<1453:君士坦丁堡的聖戰 與西方和伊斯蘭的碰撞> (1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West)。但畢竟台灣跟基督教/西方國家比較親近，所以會心理上會偏向是君士坦丁堡的'陷落'而非'佔領'吧。
羅傑‧克勞利用了厚厚一整本來描寫這場大約兩個月的戰爭的背景、過程和結局。鄂圖曼帝國能打敗拜占庭帝國的原因，大致可以歸納為兩個：一是激進的教義、二是專制的效率。由於伊斯蘭教鼓勵聖戰與殉教，而且立法允許勝者劫掠，使得士兵在戰場上根本是爭先恐後地衝向敵人。至於專制的部分，雖然西方也是皇帝極權，但基督教內部的鬥爭拖慢了救援和進攻的腳步，使得最終拜占庭帝國在孤立無援且人數壓倒性弱勢的情況下滅亡了。相比之下鄂圖曼帝國的穆罕默德二世，在軍隊運用上擁有絕對的權力，且恩威並施的手段也有效的振奮軍心。
在閱讀的當下，我無可避免的聯想到台灣海峽的對岸。此時正逢大選結束、兩岸衝突激化，武漢的肺炎莫名其妙的跳出來參一腳。為了防疫，中國無預警的在1月23日上午10點將武漢封城，這種說一不二的手段，應該也只有專制政府能夠做得到吧。在效率上，專制絕對是遠高於有如多頭馬車的民主，畢竟民主需要一次又一次收斂（多數決）才能往前走。所以在針鋒相對的時刻，似乎還是專制佔有優勢的，這讓人對未來多少有點悲觀啊。
好像離題了。回到君士坦丁堡，無論是十字軍東征還是1453年圍城，都是基於利益發起的，但都被冠上聖戰的名號－－也就是用宗教來做包裝。說來真是諷刺，人類之所以有宗教是為了撫慰心靈，但千年下來宗教總是一再重新被解讀、甚至曲解來包裝戰爭、鞏固權力，造成聖戰士兵心理上充實與肉體的毀滅。包裝的再華美，戰爭也不外乎是搶錢搶糧搶女人的概念，但回過頭來宗教到底是福是禍、還是無辜的受害方，還真讓人益發困惑了。
地中海史詩三部曲就這麼完結，庚子鼠年的大年初一也在感嘆中度過了。紙本書雖然很精緻，但握在手上真的好重啊，下一本征服者：葡萄牙帝國的崛起我要買電子版......
--------------------------------------
中文的標題雖然有種史詩的激昂，但多少背離了作者的原意...羅傑‧克勞利在伊斯蘭教與基督教雙方的文獻中盡可能的維持中立，所以其實原文的標題應該是接近序章的結尾:<1453:君士坦丁堡的聖戰 與西方和伊斯蘭的碰撞> (1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West)。但畢竟台灣跟基督教/西方國家比較親近，所以會心理上會偏向是君士坦丁堡的'陷落'而非'佔領'吧。
羅傑‧克勞利用了厚厚一整本來描寫這場大約兩個月的戰爭的背景、過程和結局。鄂圖曼帝國能打敗拜占庭帝國的原因，大致可以歸納為兩個：一是激進的教義、二是專制的效率。由於伊斯蘭教鼓勵聖戰與殉教，而且立法允許勝者劫掠，使得士兵在戰場上根本是爭先恐後地衝向敵人。至於專制的部分，雖然西方也是皇帝極權，但基督教內部的鬥爭拖慢了救援和進攻的腳步，使得最終拜占庭帝國在孤立無援且人數壓倒性弱勢的情況下滅亡了。相比之下鄂圖曼帝國的穆罕默德二世，在軍隊運用上擁有絕對的權力，且恩威並施的手段也有效的振奮軍心。
在閱讀的當下，我無可避免的聯想到台灣海峽的對岸。此時正逢大選結束、兩岸衝突激化，武漢的肺炎莫名其妙的跳出來參一腳。為了防疫，中國無預警的在1月23日上午10點將武漢封城，這種說一不二的手段，應該也只有專制政府能夠做得到吧。在效率上，專制絕對是遠高於有如多頭馬車的民主，畢竟民主需要一次又一次收斂（多數決）才能往前走。所以在針鋒相對的時刻，似乎還是專制佔有優勢的，這讓人對未來多少有點悲觀啊。
好像離題了。回到君士坦丁堡，無論是十字軍東征還是1453年圍城，都是基於利益發起的，但都被冠上聖戰的名號－－也就是用宗教來做包裝。說來真是諷刺，人類之所以有宗教是為了撫慰心靈，但千年下來宗教總是一再重新被解讀、甚至曲解來包裝戰爭、鞏固權力，造成聖戰士兵心理上充實與肉體的毀滅。包裝的再華美，戰爭也不外乎是搶錢搶糧搶女人的概念，但回過頭來宗教到底是福是禍、還是無辜的受害方，還真讓人益發困惑了。
地中海史詩三部曲就這麼完結，庚子鼠年的大年初一也在感嘆中度過了。紙本書雖然很精緻，但握在手上真的好重啊，下一本征服者：葡萄牙帝國的崛起我要買電子版......
October 11, 2014
Driving into town from Istanbul airport you are confronted by a massed array of enormous ancient walls right by the highway. Which in turn always made me want to read more about Constantinople and how it became Istanbul (also the topic of a very catchy they might be giants song).
To the credit of the author he delivers in clear simple prose the answer to how the city with the mightiest fortifications in the world fell. Even more admirably he avoids drawing simplistic parallels between today's relgious wars and those of yesteryear. I enjoyed it all, from the development of super cannons, the tenacity and infighting of the defenders, the logistic genius of Mehmet the conquered able to transport ships overland in the blink of an eye, and the terror of a medieval siege. I never knew just how many times Constantinople had been attacked before and how desperately weakened it had become. The eeriness of a 1000 year culture being extinguished overnight remained past all the accounts of mayhem and murder.
To the credit of the author he delivers in clear simple prose the answer to how the city with the mightiest fortifications in the world fell. Even more admirably he avoids drawing simplistic parallels between today's relgious wars and those of yesteryear. I enjoyed it all, from the development of super cannons, the tenacity and infighting of the defenders, the logistic genius of Mehmet the conquered able to transport ships overland in the blink of an eye, and the terror of a medieval siege. I never knew just how many times Constantinople had been attacked before and how desperately weakened it had become. The eeriness of a 1000 year culture being extinguished overnight remained past all the accounts of mayhem and murder.
September 13, 2016
Roger Crowley writes some of the absolute best narrative history, and Simon Prebble is Simon Prebble.
The 1453 fall of Constantinople is a fascinating topic surrounded in myth and mystery, with heroes like Giovanni Giustiniani and Constantine Dragases leaping from the page as if they're fictional, and the 21-year-old Mehmet Fatih an enigmatic and commanding (if occasionally childish and ill-tempered) figure.
Totally worth the read/listen if you're even remotely interested.
The 1453 fall of Constantinople is a fascinating topic surrounded in myth and mystery, with heroes like Giovanni Giustiniani and Constantine Dragases leaping from the page as if they're fictional, and the 21-year-old Mehmet Fatih an enigmatic and commanding (if occasionally childish and ill-tempered) figure.
Totally worth the read/listen if you're even remotely interested.
September 13, 2021
This book provides a great deal of information on the defenses of the city and Mehmet’s preparations for the siege and ultimate storming of the city. He also discusses at length the difficulty Constantine had in getting assistance from the Church, the Venetians and the Genoese as a result of commercial conflicts and the Great Schism. Constantine had tried to secure aid for the Pope by agreeing to rejoin(union) the Catholic Church, but the people of Constantinople were furious and abandoned St. Sophia until the last day of the siege. It is very clear that the West was far more individualistic and divided than the Muslim world.
When Crowley speaks of the poor in Constantinople, he refers to them as the proletariat. It struck me as an odd term to use.
He repeatedly praises Mehmet II. He glows when he talks of him.
The bombardment of the city began on April 12 with the firing of the sultan’s big cannons, which were manufactured for the siege.
In mid-April, a small fleet of Genovese galleys was sent to aid Constantinople. They engaged in battle with Mehmet ‘s large fleet of smaller vessels. While the winds blew the Genovese had an advantage but when the winds died the Ottomans had the advantage and we’re winning until the winds picked up late in the day and the Genovese prevailed.
Crowley dismisses all contemporary critical western descriptions of Mehmet and his army and their behavior as fanciful and propagandistic.
On May 23rd, Constantine learned that there was to be no relief fleet coming from the pope or the Venetians or anyone.
The Greek Orthodox were a very superstitious people. They believed in omens. On May 25, Constantine decided that he needed to lift the spirits of the people. He did this by making a direct appeal to the Virgin. The procession was called in which a holy icon was carried through the city. At one point it fell to the ground. It was so heavy that it was difficult to lift at first. Then a storm began that was so violent that the people had to abandon the procession.
The next morning the people are waking to find the city engulfed in a thick fog. They took this to mean that God had abandoned them. They then saw a strange light glowing from the top of Saint Sophia. And then it was in the sky. Both the defenders and the ottoman attackers took this as an omen. Crowley believes this event was caused by the eruption of a volcano in the Pacific Ocean.
A key figure in the defense of Constantinople was a man called Giustiniani. On May 28 he was injured and on the final day May 29th he was injured again. He begged to be allowed to retreat from the walls and Constantine opened the locks to a gate on the inner wall so that Giustiniani he could seek medical attention. At this point all of the soldiers that Giustiniani brought with him retreated as well.
At about the same time, a small troop slipped out of a northern gate to harass the Ottomans. On their return, they forgot to lock the postern gate. Some attackers were able to get in the walls and plant their flag. This had a devastating effect on the defenders. The city fell a short while later.
On page 233, Crowley says “almost the whole population of 50,000 had been led away to the ships in the camp; maybe 4000 had been killed in the day is fighting.“
“If the day had unfolded in pitiful scenes and terrible instances of massacre, there was nothing particular to Islam in this behavior.“ That is a quite offensive sentence. After all, jihad is a call to convert the unbeliever. And of course, the name of the religion is “submission.”
I wonder if Crowley had begun this book before 9/11, but subsequently wanted to downplay the more edgy parts of Islam. Throughout the book, his descriptions of Mehmet are glowing. Yet, he has no kind words for Constantine XI.
He downplays the rougher parts of Islam. And he discredits most of what any Christian chronicler said at the time. Rape and beheadings are only mentioned a couple of times in the entire book. Am I to believe him and his modern cosmopolitan sensibilities or am I to believe the Christian chroniclers?
It does seem to be the order of business these days to play up the ecumenical, urbane, cultured nature of Islam and to condemn any critical account of the religion and the actions of its adherents.
You might think that you can read a book of events that occurred over 500 years ago and not wonder if what you are reading advances an agenda. You can’t.
When Crowley speaks of the poor in Constantinople, he refers to them as the proletariat. It struck me as an odd term to use.
He repeatedly praises Mehmet II. He glows when he talks of him.
The bombardment of the city began on April 12 with the firing of the sultan’s big cannons, which were manufactured for the siege.
In mid-April, a small fleet of Genovese galleys was sent to aid Constantinople. They engaged in battle with Mehmet ‘s large fleet of smaller vessels. While the winds blew the Genovese had an advantage but when the winds died the Ottomans had the advantage and we’re winning until the winds picked up late in the day and the Genovese prevailed.
Crowley dismisses all contemporary critical western descriptions of Mehmet and his army and their behavior as fanciful and propagandistic.
On May 23rd, Constantine learned that there was to be no relief fleet coming from the pope or the Venetians or anyone.
The Greek Orthodox were a very superstitious people. They believed in omens. On May 25, Constantine decided that he needed to lift the spirits of the people. He did this by making a direct appeal to the Virgin. The procession was called in which a holy icon was carried through the city. At one point it fell to the ground. It was so heavy that it was difficult to lift at first. Then a storm began that was so violent that the people had to abandon the procession.
The next morning the people are waking to find the city engulfed in a thick fog. They took this to mean that God had abandoned them. They then saw a strange light glowing from the top of Saint Sophia. And then it was in the sky. Both the defenders and the ottoman attackers took this as an omen. Crowley believes this event was caused by the eruption of a volcano in the Pacific Ocean.
A key figure in the defense of Constantinople was a man called Giustiniani. On May 28 he was injured and on the final day May 29th he was injured again. He begged to be allowed to retreat from the walls and Constantine opened the locks to a gate on the inner wall so that Giustiniani he could seek medical attention. At this point all of the soldiers that Giustiniani brought with him retreated as well.
At about the same time, a small troop slipped out of a northern gate to harass the Ottomans. On their return, they forgot to lock the postern gate. Some attackers were able to get in the walls and plant their flag. This had a devastating effect on the defenders. The city fell a short while later.
On page 233, Crowley says “almost the whole population of 50,000 had been led away to the ships in the camp; maybe 4000 had been killed in the day is fighting.“
“If the day had unfolded in pitiful scenes and terrible instances of massacre, there was nothing particular to Islam in this behavior.“ That is a quite offensive sentence. After all, jihad is a call to convert the unbeliever. And of course, the name of the religion is “submission.”
I wonder if Crowley had begun this book before 9/11, but subsequently wanted to downplay the more edgy parts of Islam. Throughout the book, his descriptions of Mehmet are glowing. Yet, he has no kind words for Constantine XI.
He downplays the rougher parts of Islam. And he discredits most of what any Christian chronicler said at the time. Rape and beheadings are only mentioned a couple of times in the entire book. Am I to believe him and his modern cosmopolitan sensibilities or am I to believe the Christian chroniclers?
It does seem to be the order of business these days to play up the ecumenical, urbane, cultured nature of Islam and to condemn any critical account of the religion and the actions of its adherents.
You might think that you can read a book of events that occurred over 500 years ago and not wonder if what you are reading advances an agenda. You can’t.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 675 reviews