yet to receive input from any one of the nine, this writer can but perch o'er aonian streams, pawing at dregs of genius as they pass her by. 

The Fall Through Time: Byzantium Bygone

The Fall Through Time: Byzantium Bygone

For some, the smoke and ruin of the 15th century’s most time-hallowed Fall represent a sanguinary final act bringing the medieval period to its crimson close.[1] From the untold mass of displaced Greek intellectuals fleeing their crumbled Orthodox bastion to the same city’s changed status as crowning raiment of Turkic ascendancy, certainly the fall of Constantine’s metropolis bows beneath the weight of its own inter-continental significance. It is foolhardy to refute the crushing historical weight Constantinople’s demise holds for Turks and Franks alike. The choked end of Byzantine prestige exhumed for inhalation a variety of roles hereto locked within its Classical walls. Western Christendom received a set of armour and was told to play at guardian of antiquity[2]; both Ottomans and Muscovites were imbued with its glittering imperial destiny. Byzantium did not, then, disappear. Rather its parts were broken down and thrust into the bodies of the day’s great powers to be digested and reprocessed into ideologies palatable to disparate tastes. With speed typical of apocalyptic earthquakes, The Fall/Conquest entered the hallowed halls of popular folklore[3] even as both Western and Near-Eastern cultural identities received a permanent firebrand. Its spread and untold import did not, however, exempt The Fall from succumbing to the cultural imprint’s burden. Enmeshed to such a vast array of nations, the dual evils of appropriation and interpretation become nearly unavoidable perils – the imprint must distort to fit the native biases of its receiver. In time, the shape of truth becomes so mangled by its need to remain flush with an ever-changing cultural mould that it becomes irreconcilable with its original manifestation. As an event inherently laden with era-defining significance, The Fall became a propagandist’s plaything: an ideological prop with which to club opponents and inflate adherents. A city changed hands, history swung on its axis and everywhere the world’s scribes set to their nationalised/individuated work.

Sailing to Byzantium: Currently country neither for men young or old. 

Sailing to Byzantium: Currently country neither for men young or old. 

When Constantinople fell to the Latin Crusaders in 1204,[4] it remained as yet free of the economic shackles that would lash it to Venice and Genoa. Facing a Latin occupation and the lethal threat it presented to their culture, an entire generation of Byzantine scholars and ecclesiastics in exile exerted themselves to restore they and their Orthodoxy to its rightful seat. Indeed, as Michael Angold asserts, the Crusaders had given the imperial bastion and its people ‘a new lease on life’[5] by pushing them over the precipice of lethargy around which they had lingered for a century or more. Though the fall shattered Byzantine ankles and likely inflicted serious damage to their backs, the Latinate shove had been enough for the injured to lick their wounds and chart a course back to imperial preponderance. When finally the Byzantines drove the Latins from their capital city fifty years later, it was riding a wave of refreshed spiritual and educative superiority of the sort that had been drifting from their grasp since the turn of the millennium.[6] When the lesioned empire suffered attack in 1453, however, the dwindling Byzantines were resigned to their lack of recourse. Mehmed’s successful siege was simply confirmation of the long-term historical trend pulsing towards conclusive Ottoman superiority in the territory – most knew that his victory implied a conclusive end to the Byzantine legacy.

Why, then, does Northern Europe’s most culturally dominant fragment of Fall story concern stalwart Greek resistance and a zealous ruling caste? Emperor Constantine XI, tells popular imagination, stood atop the walls of a proud soon-to-be Ancien Régime to orate one of history’s greater impassioned speeches while his inherited empire stood on the brink of destruction.[7] Posterity tells of teary-eyed embraces and the valiant pledge of Constantinople’s remaining military commanders to sacrifice themselves in the defence of their faith and empire. The tale has become the stuff of heroic legend; ‘told and retold over the centuries’[8] as a powerful tear-jerker extolling the virtues of patriotism and pointless sacrifice. It is The Fall’s most enduring impression in Western Christendom; it is also a cynical fabrication of flesh hanging from the barest of bones. Guilty of hyperbole, embellishment, invention and misdirection, the document purports to be the eyewitness account of Byzantine historian George Sphrantzes. In reality it is little but the vainglorious invention of a Greek archbishop living in Naples over a century after The Fall had become a distant haze of blazing legend.[9] His purpose had been to entice the Holy Roman Empire into fervour for crusade that he might be delivered from lifelong exile to the lands of his ‘extolled’ ancestors. In serving his purpose, the brazen prevarication also served a Christendom sore in its defeat a tasty morsel in which their injured white pride could find solace. A saddened populace down on its patriotism have a peculiar tendency to cement themselves like limpets to any available pacifying rock.[10]

The litany of contemporary accounts serve to disprove the bishop’s overzealous imagination. A majority fail to mention a grand imperial speech at all, while those that do ascribe neither burning patriotism nor martial billows to Constantine’s address.[11] Indeed, Harris records, ‘even among the Byzantine ruling classes there was little interest in heroic last stands.’[12] It appears that the most worthy warriors had in fact been the Genoese and Venetians,[13] whose financial interests in the historic city had induced droves upon droves of immigration in the years leading up to Mehmed’s siege. While it is certainly feasible that Constantine XI entered the fray to be served a ‘heroic’ death, his younger brothers’ bathetic departures demonstrate the general air of dysphoria that had infected the Byzantines. It certainly wasn’t glorious heroism to the exaltation of historical empire on Thomas Palaiologos’ mind as he leapt aboard a Corfu-bound vessel before the Turks had even made the horizon.[14] The Byzantines were little enthused and less courageous: masters of a piteous population and tattered territories, they knew it time to let the ulcerous fat of empire finally decay.

Constantine resigns himself to Orthodox Christendoom

Constantine resigns himself to Orthodox Christendoom

In Western Christendom, Constantinople’s fall was the most alarming topic in all public discourse for up to twenty years.[15] The great mass of written material exhaled throughout the subsequent decades still extant in collections across the continent proves testament to the fact. The Fall was not, however, a wholly unexpected turn in history’s plot - the Western powers had long regarded Byzantium a straggling dependent incapable of life without dialysis.[16] Indeed, the real George Sphrantzes laid the loss of his hometown at ‘Frankish’ feet in an extended polemic, rightly charging that Europe had all but abandoned he and his people to Turkish mercy. The Hungarians lent a half-hearted succour, yet papal cooperation had failed to materialise despite the recent much-lauded church union and continued Byzantine pleas landing in Rome. Byzantium was a client of the West, but a stroppy one that was never compliant and always had its hand in the cookie jar. To many of the early-modern states, as Angold believes, it was but a ‘responsibility… where the advantages only marginally outweighed the disadvantages.’[17] Venetian and Genoese trade networks relied on its continued independence, but even the Doge was growing resentful of Constantinople’s recent refusal to afford Italian merchants their customary respect. Continued harassment by Byzantine officials exacerbated by the inherent instability within Byzantine politics alienated the great Mediterranean traders.[18] For Rome, maintaining relations with Byzantium was important not only for its consequent access to the greatest reservoir of Christian relics on the earth (miraculously restored in the years post 1204), but also as it allowed the carpet of papal prestige and influence to run its velvet way over a great swathe of otherwise wholly inaccessible territory.

Nevertheless the Byzantines had built a reputation fit to sour the troughs of European commoners in a cross-nation brotherhood of distaste. For The People, Byzantines were nothing but a duplicitous gaggle of bookish knaves, mildly heretical and certainly ethnically dubious. Their common unpalatability was only worsened by the news that Constantine XI had refused to make public acknowledgement of the 1439 Orthodox/Catholic unity.[19] The duplicitous tendency Europeans believed to be a trait of their Orthodox cousins was deeply felt in reverse by the Byzantines themselves. When the 1444 Hungarian crusade was defeated, Constantinople and its dependants fell to in despair - believing they could no longer rely on the aid of a distant people whose ardent vigour for ‘the Eastern question’ of some centuries prior was all but dissipated, pulled from their hearts by the desert winds.[20] Tensions were high and the story had devolved into an us/them farce - Europe resentful of the continued requirements Byzantium exacted even as the Byzantines were resentful of what appeared an attempt to construct European hegemony over their heads. The Byzantines were not mistaken in harbouring this suspicion; as the pro-unionist patriarch of Constantinople fled to Rome in 1451,[21] the Vatican wasted no time in advancing its own interests by marking out the price of aid in the sand. Pomp and public ceremony was to accompany a pronouncement of the Church union in the sacred Hagia Sophia. The Byzantines, helpless in their role as would-be client and caught in the throes of patriarch-flight panic were lashed to their fate and could but nod in meek agreement. [22]

This accomplished, Europe made as it ever has and sat back on its haunches to wallow in its pool of complacency. The mere threat they presented was surely powerful enough Turk deterrent. The Venetians allowed themselves to be carried away in the prevailing current of their senate-cum-echo-chamber prescribing Ottoman dormancy. The Genoese, less sanguine in outlook, took precautions by despatching a contingent of defenders under the captaincy of Giovanni Longo to the city,[23] but beyond this drop in the ocean of a horde soon to descend, no further measures were taken. Few, if any, in the West seemed to appreciate the severity of the storm coiling, straining, pooling in the east.

Once it broke, of course, tertiary damage was greatest for those locked in proximity to the hurricane’s eye. The Venetians had relatives and capital embedded deeply into the ancient alleys and towering spires of old imperium’s bulwark and ‘there was little sympathy for the Byzantines’.[24] The disaster was treated as a Venetian one - no effort was made to lend the floating Greek diaspora a humanitarian hand. The sole Venetian recourse was to grab the tongs of international relations and attempt to scrape their tattered ash from the bottom of Mehmed’s great fire. Assembling a large contingent of envoys, the Doge parted 1500 ducats from his treasury as gift to sweeten the East’s new gatekeeper.[25] As usual, the perpetual trimmers enjoyed rather spectacular success, emerging from the world-pillar earthquake with merely superficial damage and a treaty outlining Venetian rights. Merchants and residents were allowed to return and the only difference was the addition of a 2% customs duty, in opposition to the exemption enjoyed under Byzantine rule.[26] They no longer needed lose sleep over thoughts of invasion – it had happened – and within several years the administration was far less volatile than the previous chemical cocktail of overconfidence and self-abnegation.

Piri Reis breaking down East-West Bahriyehs with his map of Venice. 

Piri Reis breaking down East-West Bahriyehs with his map of Venice. 

The papacy was histrionically devastated - Nicholas V threw himself about in fits of pious angst and declared that a portion of failure’s cross was his to bear.[27] The crusade drums were beaten, but what resounding clunks rang out fell upon mostly deaf ears. Newly indebted to the pontificate, Frederick III Habsburg made efforts to shoulder Northern European recruitment efforts, but held in mortal fear of the German electors he failed to appear at his own Regensburg diet. The Hungarians proved a more pliable audience - especially with the age’s most renowned preacher Giovanni da Capistrano in attendance. It is likely their enthusiasm stemmed less from any grand religious fervour mined by Nicholas and more from nationalistic fear of the Turkic invasion common knowledge taught was on the verge of bounding at their borders.[28] Conditions for a more unified crusade still seemed propitious, as the major Italian powers Venice, Milan, Florence and Naples negotiated the conclusion of more than a century’s intermittent warfare.[29] With an imminent Turkic invasion of Italy on the lips of every citizen, the feuding states had to realise the slavering jaws of destruction could only best be abated with domestic unity.

Meanwhile, the Greek fate was sealed in waterproof envelope and cast into the ocean. Survivors of Mehmed’s onslaught were thrust into utter desolation, adrift in exiled ignominy with their pride stripped from its wall by the most caustic of means.[30] Those ex-Byzantines with aristocratic backgrounds and large bags of coin generally secured berths aboard Italian shipping escaping the Golden Horn while the Ottomans busied themselves with their extensive sacking. Those lacking either friends list or basement vault were abandoned to an army reverberating with the divine glow of a victory 700 years and an entire religion jn the making. Great swathes of the Greek population were swept into slavery[31] – Ottoman dignitaries who stood to profit wrote still-extant letters expressing their indignation at the numbers slaughtered, so valuable was the trade in human life.

For those who stayed abreast of Turkic chains a lifetime of wandering awaited. An illustrated example was crafted by the scholar Michael Apostles when he was imprisoned at the Fall and deposited somewhere on the Black Sea’s opposing coast. All that ‘sustained his soul’ was thought of natal ground, but upon his eventual return the scholar was so disturbed by Ottoman redecoration that he could not bear to stay. He records Greeks with faith ripped from their breasts, deferring to the paganism of their Hellenistic ancestors even as groups of vengeful monks thirsting for holy recrimination roamed about in gangs exacting violence upon apostate survivors. The loss of Byzantium had robbed the Greeks not only of their homeland, but the very core of their identity. God had turned a blind eye to their agony – a rapid drift from Orthodoxy followed as they fell to in disaffected droves.[32] The general attitude of utter despair was recorded in Sphrantzes’ personal musings – his plaintive disbelief resounds with melancholy through the centuries. ‘Who else,’ the real George Sphrantzes writes of emperor Constantine XI, ‘had carried out so many fasts or had offered up so many prayers… Who else had made greater provision for the poor or more undertakings to God for the liberation of Christians from captivity among the Turks? … God chose to ignore all because of what failings I do not know.’[33] Piety had gone unrewarded and the very tenets upon which the Christian life was founded had been called to challenge.

Thus Constantinople’s final fall became a central crux in the complex process of cultural redefinition accompanying the quattrocento’s phoenix-rise across early-modern Eurasia. Its impossible moment left The Fall more open than most historical players to the blindside of misrepresentation. In fact, The Greek Archbishop’s particular brand of self-serving falsehood represents not an outlying misconception in our understanding of the event; rather the ‘speech’ typifies the ego-maniacal process of rewriting and redefinition which has muddled historical waters to a turgid turbidity.

First came the apologists. Michael Kritoboulos[34] threw himself upon that particularly servile pike with a divine fervour. A wealthy member of the Byzantine laity, he had enjoined himself to the century-spanning tradition of administrators and scribes working for the glorification of Byzantine society. In an extreme about-face he came to rest among the Ottoman occupiers and set to exaltation of the newly powerful infidel. Mehmed was presented as philhellene - lover of Greece – and worthy inheritor of the Byzantine basileus.[35]

Just as eager to peck at the rotting carcass of reality was philosopher Laonikos Khalkokondyles who had long evinced his belief that the medieval ‘order’ was soon to grind itself out of existence.[36] For Laonikos, however, the world’s heavy mantle was to fall neither upon Islam nor Christianity; rather there would be a sudden surge of Hellenism to restore the days of antiquity. With wide eyes and wilful ignorance he grasped at long-faded stars: ‘the sons of Hellenes’ would ‘revive their ancient customs’ and ‘rule over no mean empire… others would find… most formidable.’.[37] As much the intellectual opportunist as Kritoboulos, he saw The Fall as a groundswell which might rise into a wave fit to deposit all upon the Hellenistic shores of his imagination. This delusion he fashioned into a hotcake-popular book which traced its way across the Adriatic as a first-hand account of the siege and Fall itself.[38] His narrative is punctuated by such grand context and variety of digressive anecdotes that he can place the rise of the Ottoman empire in a broad historical and geographical framework, leaving a prefabricated hole for his Hellenistic future. This narrative of coming seismic change fit with the ‘tectonic’ loss of Constantinople to the near eastern infidel and as such Laonikos saw himself witness to the latest chapter in the age-old confrontation of East and West. Naturally, his ravings followed the path of most obscure ravings to the gutter, but likely had an incendiary tabloid effect at the time.

Tableaux Pathetiques: Laonikos delves for his inner Delphi 

Tableaux Pathetiques: Laonikos delves for his inner Delphi 

Of most awing significance for the course of history was the reactive avalanche that Western Christendom launched about its public spheres in the subsequent years. Indeed, pre-eminent Byzantine scholar A. Pertusi claims that his interest in Constantinople was kindled by its Fall and subsequent pivotal role in Western development.[39] Immediately subsequent to the ancient seat’s forced conversion, men such as Giovanni Aurispa and Francesco Filelfo returned to Italy laden with sixty, eighty, hundreds of priceless manuscripts preserved from antiquity.[40] Such hauls helped to build the imperial capital into a symbol of almost untouchable divinity - a fallen bastion of ‘light’ against the ‘dark’ - and an immortal bulwark built on hallowed halls laden with the weight of ancient learning. This phenomenon was seized upon by Italian humanists keen to elevate their quattrocento ideals to new heights of public acceptance. Angold believes that this elevated construction based in only the most distant of truths ‘added a cultural layer to the symbolic, religious and strategic importance of the city, which ensured that the news of its loss would make its impact on Western opinion.’[41]

Founded on the same imaginatively fertile ground, a highly nostalgic flavour of articulate commentary soon sprang up. Humanists attached to the Roman Curia set about alighting the halls of discord across Europe: bewailing the loss of cultural property, they attempted to incite the wrath of the pious. In an open letter to the pope, Enea Piccolomini proclaimed that Constantinople was to the modern era as Athens had been to the Greeks at the height of Hellenism’s ascendance.[42] He emphasised the raft of manuscripts, relics and less concrete cultural property that would be lost in a foreseen ‘abominable calamity’[43] from which it would be difficult to recover. European society’s learned four-corners applied collective pressure on the pope to coalesce a crusade and strike the Infidel from the city they presented as Christian civilisation’s most indispensable cornerstone. Nicholas, whose tolerationist leanings are well documented, was provoked to a flurry of writings expanding at length on his belief that one should take an irenic view of other religions.[44] In official account he claims the news of Constantinople’s fall impacted him with such crushing force that a vision was instantly induced before his eyes. His ‘De Fidei Pace’ tells that The Father drew his consciousness to heaven to stand before Him alongside representatives of other faiths. Listening first to their exhortations individually, The Father urged peace.[45]

By now, however, general ardour for holy war had almost dissipated of its own accord. By the time 1459 and its ‘great congress’ of the collective European powers had rolled onto the near horizon, it had become clear that the Turks posed no imminent threat. The new pope Pius squeezed from his bureaucratic bubble yet another cursory crusading bull in 1460[46] before a medieval-style challenge to Mehmed followed in 1461. The Ottoman emperor was admonished for his ‘untrue’ faith and urged to consider rendering himself prostate before the cross. That this informal ‘admonishment’ was only ever issued internally within the church and never saw itself in Muslim hands is an administrative decision unusually thick with implication.[47] The battle had moved away from even hypothetical fields into a purely propagandistic realm. When finally the crusade wheezed into its 1464 launch, the much-scorned Pius II was ailing at its head and the great hulking edifice had lost support from all but the most masochistic of zealots. Pius and his fleet arrived at Ancona to await the Venetians, but when the Doge finally arrived he had only to walk the warpath for three days before parting the flotilla to make for home. The aged Pius had died onboard his ship.[48] The notion of crusade was, however, not to be relinquished – its hallowed old cabinet would yet be wheeled out for propaganda purposes when it suited. The quattrocento concept of Crusade was one which fed on an idealised past long-since dead; so culturally penetrative that it had become its own living Western Christian mythology. Certainly, myths have their Stalinesque uses, but - much like the cult of that particularly indomitable potentate - this one was becoming increasingly incompatible with the ‘modern’ era. The ever vigorous duke of Burgundy had assisted Pius II more than any else in making ready for holy war, but even he made instant recall of his inbound fleet upon hearing news of the pope’s death. It was obvious even to those whose heads were filled with crusading rhetoric that the efficacy of holy war was paling at great speed.

Enea seen here making quite the Bulgia Pope

Enea seen here making quite the Bulgia Pope

Yet The Fall pushed Europa over one cliff that she would be unable to crawl back up. A self-concept had crept up on the significantly shrunken landmass and would hold it forever in rapture. Whereas previously commentators had always preferred to use ‘Christendom’ in reference to the Christian West, the Turk-forced introspection caused a surge in popularity of the word ‘Europe’.[49] This signifier no longer pertained to a land-mass between America and Asia; rather it had begun to carry connotations of a definite culture with concrete and definable attributes. As the Renaissance loomed on the horizon, Europe’s definition of Europe slowly solidified.[50] The term’s use presupposed a different view of the continent - a continent not only defined by faith, but also by the root of its every fractured nation in the classical past. Here was the cradle of advanced civilisation - layered in history like so many continental chocolate fountains – and successor to a sparking past. Though long dead, a recognition of that same past as defining pattern for post-Roman reality was entering the discerning consciousness.[51] It was Enea Piccolomini – the future Pius II – who first began to make regular use of the term. In works such as ‘De Europa’ he set about extolling the classical period and constructing a sense of unity within the continent encompassing more than the common link of faith. Europe was a distinct civilisation; distinct and under threat from entities such as the Turks - not merely infidels, but also the descendants of an entirely separate culture.[52] The existential enmity he felt for the Turks and the reason he believed them potentially lethal threat was not because of their faith; rather that they were barbarians. Non-Romans. His self-appointed quest was to rip down any potential Trojan ancestry for the Turks and prove their Scythian – barbarian – descent. Pius founded a world which perceived the non-European nothing but a savage, lacking culture or refinement even as they remained unspeakably vicious and a great danger to the continued survival of ‘civilisation’. It was Europe against the World, and it is this particularly virile strain of presumed superiority that lasted until well into the twentieth century – and ever on, in various starins. Pius had begun the process which burnt into De Europa’s skull the moral right - even duty - to invade, corrupt and exploit. Europe was consolidating, and Europe was proud of its ancestry.

The Fall was of little importance in itself: a long overdue reverse of the tide which had supported the whale carcass of Byzantium on empire’s beach for longer than it had any right to. Empire is transitory and though Constantinople was powerful as a symbol, its real value had been debased by the Crusader occupation and centuries of desperate consolidation – a return to its original magisterium was simply impossible. The real significance of 1453 was not the death of a tired empire; rather, where Constantinople’s end mattered was in the symbols, ideologies and connections it had held in a kind of stasis since the Roman collapse of distant antiquity. With walls shattered and Christianity driven to the skies, everything that Constantinople, the Byzantines and Roman imperium had ever meant were released to the common market. Those who bought these products were not limited by any copyright policy when appropriating, interpreting and repurposing them for their audiences to chew up and pass on.


  1. Johnston, Ruth A. All Things Medieval. an Encyclopedia of the Medieval World. Greenwood, 2011. P.ix  ↩

  2. Macrides, Ruth Juliana. Travel in the Byzantine World: Papers from the Thirty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, April 2000. Variorum, 2002. P. 227  ↩

  3. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 177  ↩

  4. See: Herrin, Judith, and Guillaume Saint-Guillain. Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204. Ashgate, 2011. Chapter 3.  ↩

  5. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. VI  ↩

  6. Ibid, Preface  ↩

  7. Field, Jacob F. We Shall Fight on the Beaches: the Speeches That Inspired History. Michael O’Mara Books Limited, 2013. P. The Final Stand  ↩

  8. Harris, Jonathan. Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium. Bloomsbury Academic, an Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017. P. n/a  ↩

  9. Nicol, Donald MacGillivray. The Immortal Emperor: the Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans. Cambridge University Press, 2002. P. 67  ↩

  10. For interesting material, see: Postelnicescu, Claudia. “Europe’s New Identity: The Refugee Crisis and the Rise of Nationalism.” Europe’s Journal of Psychology, PsychOpen, 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4894286/.  ↩

  11. Philippides, Marios, and Walter K. Hanak. The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Ashgate, 2011 P.n/a  ↩

  12. Harris, Jonathan. The End of Byzantium. Yale University Press, 2012. P.56  ↩

  13. Bisaha, Nancy. Creating East and West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. P.1  ↩

  14. Miller, William. Essays on the Latin Orient. AMS Press, 1980. P. 217  ↩

  15. Philippides, Marios, and Walter K. Hanak. The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Ashgate, 2011. Chapter 10  ↩

  16. See: The Byzantine View of Western Europe Nicol, Donald M Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1967; 8, 4; ProQuest P. 326–7  ↩

  17. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. Chapter 4.  ↩

  18. Ibid, Chapter 4  ↩

  19. Rev. John McClintock (D.D.),and James Strong (S.T.D.). Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. II - C, D. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1868. p. 491  ↩

  20. Setton, Kenneth M., and Harry W. Hazard. A History of the Crusades. Volume III, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. University of Wisconsin Press, 1975. P.97  ↩

  21. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 85  ↩

  22. Ibid, “ ”  ↩

  23. Uyar, Mesut, and Edward J. Erickson. A Military History of the Ottomans: from Osman to Atatu?rk. Praeger Security International, 2009.  ↩

  24. Philippides, Marios, and Walter K. Hanak. The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Ashgate, 2011.  ↩

  25. Babinger, Franz, and William C. Hickman. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton University Press, 1992. P.155  ↩

  26. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 87  ↩

  27. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 87  ↩

  28. Ibid, p.87  ↩

  29. See: Ashmore, Harry Scott. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 12, 1963. P. 774; Kirshner, Julius. The Origins of the State in Italy, 1300–1600. ACLS History E-Book Project, 2005. P188  ↩

  30. See: Gibbon, Edward, and Giovanni Battista Piranesi. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Easton Press, 1974. Chapter 63  ↩

  31. George Finlay quoted in Brewer, David. Greece, the Hidden Centuries: Turkish Rule from the Fall of Constantinople to Greek Independence. I.B. Tauris, 2013.  ↩

  32. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 73  ↩

  33. Quoted in Ibid, P. 63  ↩

  34. Pollard, Lucy. The Quest for Classical Greece: Early Modern Travel to the Greek World. I.B. Tauris, 2015. P.87  ↩

  35. See: To?madake?s Nikolaos V. Douka, Kritovoulou, Sphrantze?, Chalkokondyle?: Peri halo?seo?s te?s Ko?nstantinoupoleo?s, 1453.: Synago?ge? keimeno?n Meta Prologou Kai viographiko?n melete?mato?n Peri to?n tessaro?n historiographo?n. Typ. M. Myrtide?, 1953.  ↩

  36. Merry, Bruce. Encyclopedia of Modern Greek Literature. Greenwood Press, 2004. P. 139  ↩

  37. Kafesciog?lu C?ig?dem. Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009. P27–8  ↩

  38. Merry, Bruce. Encyclopedia of Modern Greek Literature. Greenwood Press, 2004. P. 139  ↩

  39. See: Pertusi, Agostino. La Caduta Di Costantinopoli. Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1976.  ↩

  40. See: Filelfo, Francesco, and Diana Robin. Odes. Harvard University Press, 2009. Introduction.  ↩

  41. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 90  ↩

  42. Hollmann, Joshua. The Religious Concordance: Nicholas of Cusa and Christian-Muslim Dialogue. Brill, 2017. P. 116  ↩

  43. See: Piccolomini, Enea Silvio, et al. Reject Aeneas, Accept Pius: Selected Letters of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II). Catholic University of America Press, 2006.  ↩

  44. See: Contadini, Anna, and Claire Norton. The Renaissance and the Ottoman World. Ashgate, 2014.  ↩

  45. See: Nicholas. De Pace Fidei: Text, Translation, and Concordance. American Cusanus Society, 1986.  ↩

  46. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P.92  ↩

  47. Ibid, p.92  ↩

  48. Setton, Kenneth M. The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571). The Fifteenth Century. 1978. P. 269  ↩

  49. Persson Hans-A?ke, and Stra?th Bo. Reflections on Europe: Defining a Political Order in Time and Space. P. Lang, 2007. P.215  ↩

  50. Ibid, P.215  ↩

  51. See: Leyser, K. J. The Ascent of Latin Europe: an Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on 7 November 1984. Clarendon, 1986.  ↩

  52. Persson Hans-A?ke, and Stra?th Bo. Reflections on Europe: Defining a Political Order in Time and Space. P. Lang, 2007. P.214  ↩


Works Cited:

Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.

Ashmore, Harry Scott. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1963.

Babinger, Franz, and William C. Hickman. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton University Press, 1992.

Bisaha, Nancy. Creating East and West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.

Brewer, David. Greece, the Hidden Centuries: Turkish Rule from the Fall of Constantinople to Greek Independence. I.B. Tauris, 2013.

Contadini, Anna, and Claire Norton. The Renaissance and the Ottoman World. Ashgate, 2014.

Field, Jacob F. We Shall Fight on the Beaches: the Speeches That Inspired History. Michael O'Mara Books Limited, 2013.

Filelfo, Francesco, and Diana Robin. Odes. Harvard University Press, 2009.

Gibbon, Edward, and Giovanni Battista Piranesi. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Easton Press, 1974.

Harris, Jonathan. Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium. Bloomsbury Academic, an Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017.

Harris, Jonathan. The End of Byzantium. Yale University Press, 2012.

Herrin, Judith, and Guillaume Saint-Guillain. Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204. Ashgate, 2011.

Hollmann, Joshua. The Religious Concordance: Nicholas of Cusa and Christian-Muslim Dialogue. Brill, 2017.

Johnston, Ruth A. All Things Medieval. an Encyclopedia of the Medieval World. Greenwood, 2011.

Kafescioğlu Çiğdem. Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009.

Kirshner, Julius. The Origins of the State in Italy, 1300-1600. ACLS History E-Book Project, 2005.

Leyser, K. J. The Ascent of Latin Europe: an Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on 7 November 1984. Clarendon, 1986.

Macrides, Ruth Juliana. Travel in the Byzantine World: Papers from the Thirty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, April 2000. Variorum, 2002.

Merry, Bruce. Encyclopedia of Modern Greek Literature. Greenwood Press, 2004.

Miller, William. Essays on the Latin Orient. AMS Press, 1980.

Nicholas. De Pace Fidei: Text, Translation, and Concordance. American Cusanus Society, 1986.

Nicol, Donald MacGillivray. The Immortal Emperor: the Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans. Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Persson Hans-Åke, and Stråth Bo. Reflections on Europe: Defining a Political Order in Time and Space. P. Lang, 2007.

Pertusi, Agostino. La Caduta Di Costantinopoli. Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1976.

Philippides, Marios, and Walter K. Hanak. The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Ashgate, 2011.

Piccolomini, Enea Silvio, et al. Reject Aeneas, Accept Pius: Selected Letters of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II). Catholic University of America Press, 2006.

Pollard, Lucy. The Quest for Classical Greece: Early Modern Travel to the Greek World. I.B. Tauris, 2015.

Postelnicescu, Claudia. “Europe’s New Identity: The Refugee Crisis and the Rise of Nationalism.” Europe's Journal of Psychology, PsychOpen, 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4894286/.

Setton, Kenneth M. The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571). The Fifteenth Century. 1978.

Setton, Kenneth M., and Harry W. Hazard. A History of the Crusades. Volume III, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. University of Wisconsin Press, 1975.

Tōmadakēs Nikolaos V. Douka, Kritovoulou, Sphrantzē, Chalkokondylē: Peri halōseōs tēs Kōnstantinoupoleōs, 1453.: Synagōgē keimenōn Meta Prologou Kai viographikōn meletēmatōn Peri tōn tessarōn historiographōn. Typ. M. Myrtidē, 1953.

Uyar, Mesut, and Edward J. Erickson. A Military History of the Ottomans: From Osman to Atatürk. Praeger, 2009.

Uyar, Mesut, and Edward J. Erickson. A Military History of the Ottomans: from Osman to Atatürk. Praeger Security International, 2009.The Byzantine View of Western Europe Nicol, Donald M Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1967; 8, 4; ProQuest pg. 315

Rev. John McClintock (D.D.),and James Strong (S.T.D.). Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. II - C, D. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1868. p. 491


  1. Johnston, Ruth A. All Things Medieval. an Encyclopedia of the Medieval World. Greenwood, 2011. P.ix  ↩

  2. Macrides, Ruth Juliana. Travel in the Byzantine World: Papers from the Thirty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, April 2000. Variorum, 2002. P. 227  ↩

  3. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 177  ↩

  4. See: Herrin, Judith, and Guillaume Saint-Guillain. Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204. Ashgate, 2011. Chapter 3.  ↩

  5. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. VI  ↩

  6. Ibid, Preface  ↩

  7. Field, Jacob F. We Shall Fight on the Beaches: the Speeches That Inspired History. Michael O’Mara Books Limited, 2013. P. The Final Stand  ↩

  8. Harris, Jonathan. Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium. Bloomsbury Academic, an Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017. P. n/a  ↩

  9. Nicol, Donald MacGillivray. The Immortal Emperor: the Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans. Cambridge University Press, 2002. P. 67  ↩

  10. For interesting material, see: Postelnicescu, Claudia. “Europe’s New Identity: The Refugee Crisis and the Rise of Nationalism.” Europe’s Journal of Psychology, PsychOpen, 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4894286/.  ↩

  11. Philippides, Marios, and Walter K. Hanak. The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Ashgate, 2011 P.n/a  ↩

  12. Harris, Jonathan. The End of Byzantium. Yale University Press, 2012. P.56  ↩

  13. Bisaha, Nancy. Creating East and West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. P.1  ↩

  14. Miller, William. Essays on the Latin Orient. AMS Press, 1980. P. 217  ↩

  15. Philippides, Marios, and Walter K. Hanak. The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Ashgate, 2011. Chapter 10  ↩

  16. See: The Byzantine View of Western Europe Nicol, Donald M Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1967; 8, 4; ProQuest P. 326–7  ↩

  17. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. Chapter 4.  ↩

  18. Ibid, Chapter 4  ↩

  19. Rev. John McClintock (D.D.),and James Strong (S.T.D.). Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. II - C, D. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1868. p. 491  ↩

  20. Setton, Kenneth M., and Harry W. Hazard. A History of the Crusades. Volume III, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. University of Wisconsin Press, 1975. P.97  ↩

  21. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 85  ↩

  22. Ibid, “ ”  ↩

  23. Uyar, Mesut, and Edward J. Erickson. A Military History of the Ottomans: from Osman to Atatu?rk. Praeger Security International, 2009.  ↩

  24. Philippides, Marios, and Walter K. Hanak. The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Ashgate, 2011.  ↩

  25. Babinger, Franz, and William C. Hickman. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton University Press, 1992. P.155  ↩

  26. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 87  ↩

  27. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 87  ↩

  28. Ibid, p.87  ↩

  29. See: Ashmore, Harry Scott. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 12, 1963. P. 774; Kirshner, Julius. The Origins of the State in Italy, 1300–1600. ACLS History E-Book Project, 2005. P188  ↩

  30. See: Gibbon, Edward, and Giovanni Battista Piranesi. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Easton Press, 1974. Chapter 63  ↩

  31. George Finlay quoted in Brewer, David. Greece, the Hidden Centuries: Turkish Rule from the Fall of Constantinople to Greek Independence. I.B. Tauris, 2013.  ↩

  32. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 73  ↩

  33. Quoted in Ibid, P. 63  ↩

  34. Pollard, Lucy. The Quest for Classical Greece: Early Modern Travel to the Greek World. I.B. Tauris, 2015. P.87  ↩

  35. See: To?madake?s Nikolaos V. Douka, Kritovoulou, Sphrantze?, Chalkokondyle?: Peri halo?seo?s te?s Ko?nstantinoupoleo?s, 1453.: Synago?ge? keimeno?n Meta Prologou Kai viographiko?n melete?mato?n Peri to?n tessaro?n historiographo?n. Typ. M. Myrtide?, 1953.  ↩

  36. Merry, Bruce. Encyclopedia of Modern Greek Literature. Greenwood Press, 2004. P. 139  ↩

  37. Kafesciog?lu C?ig?dem. Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009. P27–8  ↩

  38. Merry, Bruce. Encyclopedia of Modern Greek Literature. Greenwood Press, 2004. P. 139  ↩

  39. See: Pertusi, Agostino. La Caduta Di Costantinopoli. Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1976.  ↩

  40. See: Filelfo, Francesco, and Diana Robin. Odes. Harvard University Press, 2009. Introduction.  ↩

  41. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P. 90  ↩

  42. Hollmann, Joshua. The Religious Concordance: Nicholas of Cusa and Christian-Muslim Dialogue. Brill, 2017. P. 116  ↩

  43. See: Piccolomini, Enea Silvio, et al. Reject Aeneas, Accept Pius: Selected Letters of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II). Catholic University of America Press, 2006.  ↩

  44. See: Contadini, Anna, and Claire Norton. The Renaissance and the Ottoman World. Ashgate, 2014.  ↩

  45. See: Nicholas. De Pace Fidei: Text, Translation, and Concordance. American Cusanus Society, 1986.  ↩

  46. Angold, Michael. The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. P.92  ↩

  47. Ibid, p.92  ↩

  48. Setton, Kenneth M. The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571). The Fifteenth Century. 1978. P. 269  ↩

  49. Persson Hans-A?ke, and Stra?th Bo. Reflections on Europe: Defining a Political Order in Time and Space. P. Lang, 2007. P.215  ↩

  50. Ibid, P.215  ↩

  51. See: Leyser, K. J. The Ascent of Latin Europe: an Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on 7 November 1984. Clarendon, 1986.  ↩

  52. Persson Hans-A?ke, and Stra?th Bo. Reflections on Europe: Defining a Political Order in Time and Space. P. Lang, 2007. P.214  ↩

Westering Canon: John's Stained Backs

Westering Canon: John's Stained Backs

The Bacchanalia of Belonging: Bukowski's Fun Fun Fun

The Bacchanalia of Belonging: Bukowski's Fun Fun Fun