Talk:Fall of Constantinople/Archive 2

Christian insurgency?
I see no mention of anything occurring after the sack save for its becoming the Ottoman capital. Even though the city was badly underpopulated and people surrendered to the Ottomans, was there any sort of Christian insurgency against the Ottomans? Whether it lasted a few weeks or a decade or more? Whether it was in the form of night-time raids or full-blown street fighting between two small armies? There isn't much information on post-Byzantine life in Constantinople AndarielHalo (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tens of thousands of Christian soldiers, including Greeks, fought for the Ottomans, and undoubtedly so at the Siege of Constantinople. They were outnumbered at least 10 to 1 (the Greeks) and they had proven themselves incapable of defending themselves in the fronts. To suggest that they somehow became overwhelmed with a patriotic urge to fight their Ottoman conquerors, after the results were very clear is out of the question. I find it amusing that you would use a term like "insurgency".  Gabr-  el  18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There were some small scale fighting in Constantinople after its fall, which was rather brief, since the invading army practically left none alive. Emperor Constantine XI was killed, Ecumenical Patriarch Athanasius II was killed, Megas Doux (equivelent to modern Prime Minister) Loukas Notaras was executed, most of the Byzantine aristocracy and royalty was annihilated (an example is the last Emperor of Trebizond, David of Trebizond, who was beheaded along with his 7 sons, on Sultan's orders in 1463). Some others fled to the West. Nonetheless, the Greeks revolted in a chain of small or significant uprisings a total of 400 times, until 1821. --Hectorian (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that you insult me for using terms you imply I only just learned from watching TV nonstop for the past few years. Not amusing, actually; insulting.  I find it insulting.  Wikipedia itself defines insurgency as: a violent internal uprising against a sovereign government that lacks the organization of a revolution.


 * Considering how the Emperor was killed in fighting, and the city was already badly underpopulated, I sincerely doubted that there would be a chance to unite enough people around one head for anything remotely like a successful rebellion. AndarielHalo (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hectorian: When you say "practically left none alive", you mean of the Byzantine leadership and authority figures, or common people and civilians as well? AndarielHalo (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Those in a position to resist in all likelihood were not left alive. Constantinople retained a significant Greek population thereafter, so a total slaughter is improbable.  Gabr-  el  16:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Even in the event of a total slaughter, Mehmed II spent years repopulating the city. Which would explain the later Greek population. "Mehmed’s main concern with Istanbul had to do with rebuilding the city’s defenses and repopulation. Building projects were commenced immediately after the conquest, which included the repair of the walls, construction of the citadel, and building a new palace. Mehmed issued orders across his empire that Muslims, Christians, and Jews should resettle the city; he demanded that five thousand households needed to be deported to Istanbul by September. By 1459 the Sultan promoted a lot of energy to bringing prosperity to Istanbul. In several quarters of the city pious foundations were created; these areas consisted of a theological college, a school (or a Madrasa, usually connected to the mosque ), a public kitchen, and a mosque. In the same year Mehmed sent out orders that any Greeks who left Istanbul as slaves or refugees were allowed to return to the city. These actions lead Istanbul to become a once again thriving capital of the Ottoman Empire. " Dimadick (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

historical event infobox
The following was the start of this conversation on User:Reddi's talk page:

''I removed your title box for Fall of Constantinople, as it was in the middle of the article and that there was already a title box in the intro. Dinkytown (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)''

''I am going to restore the infobox. It is an important event in western history and modern history. a turning point. J. D. Redding 16:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)''


 * Do not restore (please remove) your infobox. Read WP:IBX for the proper way to use them.  The way you are using them is incorrect. Dinkytown (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a important historical event. This is not to replace the one at the top. It is to identify the specific event. There is NOTHING in WP:IBX that goes against the placement of the infobox at the event; infact it says "designed to be placed into main articles related to the topic area". The taking of Constantinople is the event and it's placement is there. J. D. Redding 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And you also removed it from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehmed_II&diff=prev&oldid=301888615 ... WTF!?!? J. D. Redding 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am moving this discussion to the talk:Fall of Constantinople talkpage. Dinkytown (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

End of User:Reddi talk page - continuing here: Dinkytown (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ''

It goes to the section of:
 * After the initial assault, the Ottoman army fanned out along the main thoroughfare of the city, the Mese, past the great forums, and past the Church of the Holy Apostles, which Mehmed II wanted to provide a seat for his newly appointed patriarch which would help him better control his Christian subjects. Mehmed II had sent an advance guard to protect key buildings such as the Holy Apostles, as he did not wish to establish his new capital in a thoroughly devastated city.

The Infobox Historical Event is used in the WikiProject History to identify important and significant events. The Infobox Infobox historical event should be added to the pages of notable events.

This needs to be placed into the article. It is a significant event in western history and modern history. J. D. Redding 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, this is not to replace the one at the top. It is to identify the specific event. There is NOTHING in WP:IBX that goes against the placement of the infobox at the event; infact it says "designed to be placed into main articles related to the topic area". J. D. Redding 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how this box would help the reader identify the event. The event is already more than adequately identified by the title, and given at least some context in the military conflict infobox and, more importantly, the lead. Alone, the Infobox historical event merely recapitulates the main points of the article, without adding any information whatsoever. I am not one of the "infoboxes must burn in hell" milieu, but one can overdo it, and the fact is, it simply has no point in being there, as it offers nothing useful to the article. Anyone who has read up to that section already knows what the article is about. If the article did not have an infobox already, or if a suitable infobox could not be found, I'd certainly let it stand (and put it on top), but military events are perfectly well covered by WPMILHIST templates. Regards, Constantine  ✍  17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than you not liking the look of it, your POV ("infoboxes must burn in hell") should not prevent improvements to the article.
 * Please answer these:
 * Is this an notable event?
 * Should this infoboxes be added to the pages of notable events?
 * How is this "overdoing" it?
 * It's point in being there is to identify the event. It offers a useful reference to the more general prose of the article. It also identifies the "Results" clearly and easily for the reader.
 * It's not to put on top. It's to be put where the event is [one can put it on top if there is not another infobox].
 * J. D. Redding 18:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, WP:IBX doesn't provide any guidance on the use of infoboxes within an article, but rather on style and content of the infoboxes themselves. Constantine  ✍  18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Redding - the question is not if its a notable event, we can all agree on that... The questions is this: is there precedence for putting another info box again in the middle of the article?  The event can be linked to another article that goes into more detail of the subject.  Where is there another article that has two or more info boxes?  What you have there is redundant as there are other infoboxes that support the subject in their own articles. Dinkytown (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Precedence for infoboxes in the body of articles? Yea ... you find them in several articles ... If you look around you can find them. (Are you new to wikipedia?)
 * BUT, Please answer these:
 * Is this an notable event?
 * Should this infoboxes be added to the pages of notable events?
 * How is this "overdoing" it?
 * J. D. Redding 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your not reading the responses. As I said, the event is notable.  Where is the precedence for those putting in extra infoboxes "... in several articles".  Give us some examples.  How is this "overdoing" it?  Those events have their own infoboxes in their own pages - thats why.  Dinkytown (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * examples? here's one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X [2 infoboxes at top even!] ... you can find you own, I don't have time to do the legwork or teach about wikipedia.
 * you are not answering the questions. If they are not answered [particularly the last one] the infobox should be restored. J. D. Redding 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW don't confuse the 'historical event' infobox and the infobox of Military Conflict and infobox of Campaignbox Byzantine-Ottoman Wars [both are at top]. One is for history, and the other is for military. Still waiting on a specific answer. All events DO NOT have their own infoboxes in their own pages. J. D. Redding 19:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, two things: first, please read carefully what I write. I clearly said I am not in the "infoboxes must burn" category. So that is not the reason I oppose it. Second, this is clearly a notable event. However, my question is, how does this particular infobox, in this particular case, contribute anything to the article? It tells us the precise same things that the first infobox does, only the conflict infobox includes some additional details. In the Pope's case (as in that of many kings, princes etc), the infoboxes are of a different nature and about different things. Infobox historical event merely summarises an event, but we already have an infobox to do just that. Constantine  ✍  19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It gives the results. Does the infobox of Military Conflict or infobox of Campaignbox Byzantine-Ottoman Wars allow historical results? If so, then problem solved; otherwise the proble exists [maybey editing down the 'event box' could be a soultion]. J. D. Redding 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (ps., My apologies, sorry for misreading that.)


 * OK then. There is a "results" field in the Conflict infobox, it currently reads "Decisive Ottoman victory. End of the Byzantine Empire." If you want to tweak around there, feel free to do so. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the changes made to the page as described above and I can agree to them. Take care... (FYI: I striked the below statement(*redacted* - Dinkytown)). Dinkytown (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That example you cited Redding is a 'sub' infobox, which is not what you are putting into the Fall of Constantinople page. That 'sub' box could have been easily put into the main box.  I will not accept that example as it is a poor one.   Find a better one than that.  You are putting in a whole new template infobox on the Constantinople page - which looks crappy.  You've been on wiki long enough to know the difference.
 * I just told you that those events have their own infoboxes on their own pages. I just answered your question.  The infobox should remained removed. Dinkytown (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Turakhan Beg
There is no mention in this article about one important event and role of Turakhan Beg in the Fall of Constantinople:

In October 1452 Sultan Mehmed II ordered Turakhan Beg and his sons Ahmad and Omar to lead large force to the Peloponnese and to remain there the all winter in order to prevent despots Thomas and Demetrios to assist their brother Constantine during the Siege of Constantinople in 1453.

based on the following source written by Kenneth Setton:

I propose to add above mentioned sentence within preparations section. Does anybody object?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good find. The ref however is incorrect: the correct work is . Cheers, Constantine  ✍  18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanx. I will correct the ref.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fall of constantinople is a very biased naming, the same as liberation of constantinple. The conquest is the un-biased one. But as other historical articles clearly shows, wikipedia is a biased & western oriented information source after all.

The fall of constantinople opened the gateway to Europe for the Ottomans, It also ment the end of the roman empire and of the longest and most prosporous empire in the history of mankind.

The Sheeps as "pretext" reason
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kansas_Bear&oldid=274005791#Nonsesn) The reason was sheeps for Conquest of Constantinopol. I don't joke. I'm serios. --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to search on Google for koyun (sheep) but gives me köyün (... the village). --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is not the real reason but the "allegation" / "pretext". --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Both sources (Ottoman and Byzantine) affirm that event (the sheeps event). I've heard it from the TV were 2 historicans were talking about the concuest of Constantinoplole. --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

user: "Kansas Bear" thinks that it is nonses, but let us try to find the source. Please do not remove this text.

Here is my removed text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Constantinople&diff=274003209&oldid=274002211 --144.122.250.143 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC) "The reason was that there were arrested Ottoman soldier by Byzantinians, who (Ottoman soldiers) were tryed to get sheep taxes from Byzantinians near Constantinople, Ottomans claimed that the event was within Ottoman lands, the contact of Ottoman Empire with Byzantium was inconclusive, therefore Ottoman Empire gained "meaningful" reason to attacked." --144.122.250.143 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC) --Jake 17:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)the plural of Byzantine is "Byzantines" not "Byzantinians", that is, assuming that you people are speaking english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakerslake (talk • contribs)


 * Are you saying that this 'sheep tax' was the pretext for the Siege of Constantinople in 1453? I've never heard of this before and Constantine knew very well that pressing that kind of issue would result in a lot of trouble.  Sounds like justification after the fact...  The sources you provided above are not reliable sources. What other source(s) are you citing? Dinkytown 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, yes, but more definitely the arrested few Ottoman soldiers because of the sheep tax. Yes, ...the Siege of Constantinople in 1453. And yes, it is pretext. Now I'm giving you more information: One of these historians is Murat Bardakçı who has a TV program on Haber Türk called Tarihin Arka Odası, I do not remember the other one's name (he is in the same program too). He is giving his mail address during the program, may be someone can get his mail address and ask (I suggest you to ask after the program) for source about this topic. --144.122.250.148 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If that wikipedia page is correct, then Murat Bardakçı would *NOT* be a credible source, as he defends the Armenian Genocide, which the Turkish government completely denies. This 'sheep tax' is just an attempt to defend "Turkishness" and the 'Turkish image'.  The Turkish media does not have a good reputation in being unbiased.  There is a lot of after-the-fact justifications for a lot of stuff - the 'sheep tax' is just one of them.   Constantine tried his best to resolve any disputes with Metmed, to no avail.  One of the first things he did was build Rumelihisarı, nearly two years before the siege.  They guy wanted the city badly and he planned for it - not defending a 'sheep tax'.  Don't even think of using it as a source on the page. Dinkytown 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not matter whether he defends so called Armenian Genocide or not. But he said something interesting, and let us wait whether there is source or not. To clarify: You are saying that it is attempt to defend Turkishness. But if you watched that program you would hear that they said that "Of course those arrested Ottoman soldiers were only pretext, whether or not they were going to sign Constantinople". So, it does not seem like an attempt to defend Turkishness, isn't it? Please do not speak with your biased mind! History is not for biased people. Moreover, if you are using only non-Turkish sources can you say for yourself that you are unbiased? Look for both (Ottoman and Byzantine) sources, if they have a common story then it is a fact. --144.122.250.139 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is one of his mail addresses: mbardakci€hurriyet.com.tr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.250.139 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point being made about the Armenian Genoice, which numerous scholars support the existence of, and which numerous Turkish "scholars" unsurprisingly deny, is that this writer, who has made his bias against the traditional enemies of Turks clear with his Armenian genocide denial, is likely to make up nonensense biasing against the Greeks, to make it look like the Turks were not the aggressors.


 * Stop this laughable nonesense. No credible scholar has mentioned anything of any tax. The fact of the matter is that Constantine XI begged the Sultan not to attack and sent out ambassadors with gifts, of which neither returned. The Ottomans had it in their mind to take Constantinople in 1402, in 1423 and 1453 was their lucky shot.  Gabr-  el  17:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, Since you made this personal I'll explain my reasoning for the above. I have lived in Turkey for several months and I know the media is like - rancid...  A Turkish reporter is not going to go against the offical position of the Turkish government.  There have already been reporters arrested because they "insulted the Turkishness" of the state under Article 301.  Anyone, such as Murat Bardakçı who denies the Armenian Genocide, plays right into the governments policy. Bardakçı a suspect charater, just like anyone who denies the Holocaust (Jewish) is suspect and not credible.  Murat Bardakçı couldn't get a job as a reporter in the EU or the US because of his statements, but in Turkey he's employable.  I - and most other people, would discredit that person because of his position - no matter what else they said about anything, including a 'sheep tax'.  There is no scholarly sources, primary or otherwise, that has come to light regarding this "sheep tax" dispute between the Byzantines and Turks.  This 'sheep tax' is a modern creation only to make Mehtmed look better (declaring war without provocation?) - maybe even to make the Turks look like a victim in 1453?  The source is simply wrong - just drop it... Dinkytown 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you accept the propaganda of Armenians your comments should not be considered as something important.
 * And you (Gabr-el) above, since you have believes, which are nonscientific (even comic), your comments should not be considered as something important. --144.122.250.144 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow - So Article 301 = Armenian propaganda? LOL - who is comical here? Dinkytown 04:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE RELATION OF THIS ARTICLE WITH THE ARMENIANS????? PSEUDO OBJECTIVE WIKIPEDIAAAAAA!!!! ARMENIANS ALSO KILLED TURKS WHY YOU DO NOT MENTION THIS!!! BECAUSE YOU ARE IDIOTIC SMALL MISERABLESS!!!

The guy who talks about a sheep tax and a nonesense theory for the Fall is calling my beliefs comic. So let me reiterate Dinkytown, WOW!!! Gabr-  el  04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

movie
http://www.fetih1453movie.com/main.html http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetih_1453 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople
Per May 1453 lunar eclipse which reads "The partial eclipse was visible from, Africa, Asia, and Australia." I am unsure if the eclipse was observable from Europe at all. Given how it is not sourced, I am considering removing the entire section. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Accounts written by people who were at the siege mention the eclipse. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unsure how much of it was visible. It was a partial eclipse to begin with. Are we sure such sources are historic in origin? Can these sources be cited? http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEhistory/LEplot/LE1453May22P.pdf documents that eclipse was only visible on moon rise I believe. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The "surrender" of the villages inside the city
I removed the sentences about the surrender of the "villages" in the city. This story is well known, but comes from 16th century, and was an escamotage used by the Ottoman government in the time of Suleyman, to allow the Greek community to keep some churches. In case of surrender, this would have been allowed by the law, but not in case of conquest. So, 3 very old Janissaries were found, who "remembered" that during the conquest in some places inside the city the population freely surrendered to the troops. After that the Rum in Istanbul were allowed to keep their churches. In general, the Ottoman policy towards the non Muslim population oscillated between tolerance (as during Suleyman's reign) and intransigence (as during Selim and Beyazid). Alex2006 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath
''The capital allowed the Turks to establish a permanent supply base in Europe. Further advances into the Kingdom of Hungary and the bordering states(1) would have been difficult, if not impossible, without the harbors of Constantinople bringing in supplies and serving as a fortified center from which to administer the empire(2). And the conquest of the Byzantine Empire removed a foe(3) to the rear of the Ottoman advance into Europe.''

1) They had already been doing far flong raids and conquest far beyond Constantinople. 2) Heard of Galipoli and Adrianople/Edirne? 3) It should be essential to write the turks turned on and removed a weak vassal, not an enemy untill they (the turks) attacked..

Summary: this text really need to re-edited and with at least one reliable reference source. --Byzantios (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. I rephrased it, removing the part which is senseless. Alex2006 (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits by User:Paracetamol 23
Paracetomol23, please discuss your edits here. They are irrelevant to the article and do not conform to WP:MOS and contain your own editorializing. You have been reverted by 2 different editors now. Per WP:CONSENSUS, you need to gain consensus for your change before trying to put it in again. DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected the article due to edit warring. Per WP:BRD, it's typical for the user trying to add contentious edits to discuss them on the talk page, so: here's your chance to explain your rationale. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Several Greek and non-Greek intellectuals fled the city before and after the siege"
As the article says in the lead -- but who are these non-Greek intellectuals? Iblardi (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The body of the article only mentions Greek intellectuals so per WP:LEAD that should change. But whether there were in fact non-Greek intellectuals (the odd Russian or Italian cleric perhaps?) I don't know...Not significant though. DeCausa (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. The flee of Greek intellectuals, like Bessarione, to Italy, was one of triggers of the Italian Renaissance. Never heard about the presence of clerics of other nations in Constantinople at that time (maybe Armenians?). Alex2006 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Role of Serbia misrepresented
Describing the capture of Constantinople as a joint effort of the Ottoman Empire and the Despotate of Serbia does not make sense. Serbia did send a contingent of 1500 cavalrymen because they were obliged to do so as vassals of Ottomans, but that unit was never used in combat operations - they probably served as hostages to guarantee Serbia's neutrality in the conflict.

As for putting Đurađ Branković as one of the leaders, that's simply inaccurate. The old despot of Serbia never came close to the site of the battle - he was at his capital Smederevo in 1453. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.173.105 (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The entire passage isn't credible sourced- the source is a broken web site link, and is cited repeatedly in this article.Mavigogun (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead
There have been some edits to a part of the introduction which now reads as follows:"The capture of Constantinople (and two other Byzantine splinter territories soon thereafter) marked the end of the Roman Empire, a state which had lasted for nearly 1,500 years." I believe I added the parenthetical, to account for the later conquests of the Byzantine states of Trebizond and Morea. Perhaps that precision is at the expense of clarity; the fall of the city was the practical end of the Roman empire, rather than the falls of these minor Byzantine principalities a few years later.

Another question raised by the present language is whether the Roman Empire was a "state" (which had lasted nearly 1,500 years). The Roman Empire was not really a different polity than the Republic. Is there a way we can (or should) address this, while preserving the focus? Kablammo (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a legacy of Gibbon's Decline and Fall. We could alter the sentence to say "Edward Gibbon dates the end of the Roman Empire ... etc", if you think that would work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the end of the East Roman Empire was the end of the empire (almost tautological when we use "East Roman" instead of "Byzantine"). My concern is that the present language implies that the Roman state was almost 1500 years old when Constantinople fell; that is how old it was when the empire fell, but the Roman state was older.  Kablammo (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We could write "...the end of the Roman state, an entity which had lasted for about 2'700 years). Alex2006 (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: latest instance adding an imperial state which had lasted for nearly 1,500 years. I have no problem with this but others might, so...Thanatos|talk 01:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is -in general- biased against Muslim Ottomans
The article is unjust. It doesn't show the Ottoman perspective of the battle. For example, all Ottoman sources assure that the Muslim Conquerors treated the civilians gently after the conquest. One of the great evidences of this, is the Funeral of Constantine XI. Ottoman sources mentioned that the conquerors allowed the Christian people to bury their Emperor according to their religious Rites, and indicated that he was buried in Al-Munzel Al-Atiq in Maydan Wafa.

I found this painting in article: Freedom of religion in Turkey



(94.59.255.185 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC))


 * The article looks biased because the only ones which lost time in writing something were the losers. :-) The Ottoman sources about the Conquest can be barely counted on the fingers of one hand, and some of them are for several reason considered unreliable. As a matter of fact, the contemporary Turks were apparently not aware of the historical significance of the Conquest. If you are interested in learning more about the ottoman sources on the conquest and related historiographical problems, please read "The siege and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 historiography, topography, and military studies" of Marios Philippides, who also shows that the alleged Funeral of Constantine XI in Vefa (like his burial in the Gül Camii) is a legend. Alex2006 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Islamic sources are notoriously biased in regards to their conquests (contemporary Christian ones were as well of course but not nearly to the same extent). Ottoman sources don't even agree on what happened to Constantine XI, some say his dead body was beheaded and his head sent across Anatolia while others say he was buried. We can't alter the article just because one or two Islamic sources have different claims to the consensus of contemporary and modern historians.JasonnF (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No Jason, the main problem is not biasing, it is the paucity of the sources on the Ottomans side. Moreover, Of the 2 main Ottoman sources (Tursun Beg and Evliya Çelebi), the first one is a Panegyric (unreliable by default), and the second was written 200 years after the Fall. One thing is sure: the definitive history of the Conquest must still be written. Alex2006 (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've read many articles about this subject and found that though the inhabitants weren't treated well in the initial break into the city, the sultan soon called off the pillaging and the inhabitants were allowed to live. MarkoPolo56 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mater what is "just", or what "many articles" have to say- but what credible sources can be cited. Generalizations are useless on a talk page. If there is specific text that does not reflect credible sources, bring it here for address. Mavigogun (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I also think that the article is in general based against the muslim Ottomans. First of all the title is pro-Greek&Christian title, why isn't the title The Conquest of Istanbul?Sir II. Unknown (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While "Fall" may represent a Western perspective, that does not mean it shows bias (at least in the pejorative sense of that term). There is nothing in it that is "pro-Greek&Christian".  The title Rise and Fall of the Third Reich surely does not show that William L. Shirer, the author of that book, was biased against the Western Allies.  Kablammo (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the point being made about the title is that it shows an inherent perspetive rather than it being pejorative. That is, "fall" is the perspective of the defenders whilst "conquest" is the perspective of the attackers. Displaying that perspetive is non-neutral regardless of whether it is pejorative. Whilst I agree to a point (the Shirer book shows it doesn't always reflect perspective, although the "rise and fall" combination is a long-standing idiom/cliche), WP:COMMONNAME justifies "fall". Rightly or wrongly, English language usage probably is influenced by the perspective of the christian defenders. But, per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia policy is to follow common English language usage even if it produces a non-neutral result. DeCausa (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, we could always use the word "Siege". Alex2006 (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There was more than one siege, and disambiguating by year would be more cumbersome, and would not follow the "Common Name" policy. If the more common name among some users is Conquest of Constantinople they end up here anyway. Kablammo (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know it, and if I remember well there was also more than one conquest :-) . Anyway, mine was only an extrema ratio proposal, but I agree that WP:COMMONNAME should be followed. Alex2006 (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think disambiguation by year shouldn't be discounted. I've always thought Siege of Constantinople (1204) (along with all the other sieges that didn't result in the "fall" of the City) and Fall of Constantinople to be unsatisfactory and slightly confusing. Fall of Constantinople (1204) and Fall of Constantinople (1453) would be better, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because the 1453 conquest is much better known; therefore it should use the common name, rather than having searchers first go through a disambiguation page. I think we should modifiy the  note at the top linking to Siege of Constantinople (1204), rather than to a list of other sieges.  Kablammo (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I previewed this change to see how it looked, at have saved the edit thereby making the change so tht others may see it more easily. Should it be reverted before discussion is complete,  is my edit.  Kablammo (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, on 1453 being "much better known" than 1204: I think neither would be "well known". To the extent that a reader "knows about" 1453, most likely they would also "know about" 1204. But this isn't probably a productive debate. I think your note is a move in the right direction but would word it "For the fall of the city in 1204 as a result of the Fourth Crusade, see Siege of Constantinople (1204)". DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Prophecy of the fall?
Is this really appropriate for the lede?
 * The conquest of Constantinople was one of the major predictions of Islam in Islamic tradition.[28] Reference is made to the prospective conquest of Constantinople in an authentic hadith, a narration of a saying of Muhammad.[28][29] “ Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will he be, and what a wonderful army will that army be! ” This narration can be found in various compilations of prophetic sayings including in Sahih Bukhari, complied in the 9th century more than five hundred years before the conquest? Iapetus (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. It was added a week ago and nobody seems to have noticed. I removed it. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 's removal was reverted by, and I in turn have removed it again, pending discussion here. My view is that a neutral mention of it would be appropriate in the article. Wikipedia should not assert that a saying is an authentic utterance of the person to whom it is ascribed (whether Muhammad, Jesus, or any other prophet) but the beliefs and motivations of the conquerors, just as those of the defenders, are relevant. In any case such statements would be best sourced to secondary sources which discuss their meaning. Kablammo (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with all the above. I cannot see that it is a big enough point for the lead but a neutral mention in the main body of the article is warranted. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Death of Constantine XI Palaeologus
Hello dear editors. My suggestion is that we add George Sphrantzhs version of Constantine's death parallel to the Nicolo Barbaro and Ottoman ones because its missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User556783 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the source for this version? Norwich says that he and the emperor last saw each other the night of the 28th, and Roger Crowley appears to say the same. Sphrantzes' Chronicle states:"On Tuesday May 29, early in the day, the emir [sultan] took possession of our city; in this time of capture my late master and emperor, Lord Constantine, was killed. I was not at his side at that hour but had been inspecting another part of the City, according to his orders."Chronicle, 35:9 (emphasis added).  As Sphrantzes was not an eyewitness, the account cannot be reliable. And his heroic version of Constantine's death may suggest something other than objective reporting by the emperor's close friend. Kablammo (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. Read about it for example Philippides and Hanak (2011). Moreover, it is a primary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Alex2006 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:PRIMARY is so much the problem - the simple quoting of Sphrantzes is ok under that policy, although describing it as "reliable", as was done in the edit, would need a secondary source. The issue is more that it is WP:UNDUE since for the reasons mentioned the account isn't reliable.DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what i meant pointing at WP:Primary. In order to cite a primary source, we need at least a reliable secondary source supporting it. Alex2006 (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Over-rated event?
Not to trivialize the significance of the incorporation of what had been a great city of one civilization into another by force...

It would seem that toward its last years, the Byzantine Empire was no longer a going concern. Contemporary sources must have seen the fall of Constantinople as a shocking event due to the earlier reputation of the Byzantine Empire as an economic and military power, but by 1453 it was at most a city-state and at that practically a remnant of one. Modern scholarship recognizes the demographic realities of Constantinople in its last days the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Its fall was by then a certainty. In view of the declining population and worsening conditions of its inhabitants its intellectual life could not have sustained what it had.

As an intellectual center it was by then at most a relic. Byzantine culture had been taken to Russia and Italy, among other places. Much of the literature of Byzantium was copies, and a few intellectual refugees could not have brought all of it. Byzantine learning had shaped late-medieval intellectual activity in most of Europe long before 1453.

The fall of Constantinople did not itself so cut off the east-west trade between Europe and the Far East as used to be claimed. Columbus' and later voyages to the New World and voyages of Portuguese sailors around the Cape of Good Hope being caused by the Turks controlling the east-west trade routes shows a post hoc fallacy. First, were the contention true, then east-west trade between the Far East and western Europe would have ended long beforehand. Second, the Turks were themselves avid traders, and a country generally sympathetic to Turkey (like Poland or France) would have never noticed a difference. Already surrounded by the Ottoman Empire, Constantinople would have been an inconvenient way-station for any long-distance trade long before 1453. Third, the Ottoman Empire never controlled the Silk Road that lay far to the north of Turkey, an expensive portage between Europe and China whose cost no matter who controlled it made explorations of the New World and southern seas attractive. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The importance of the event that, all things considered, the Fall of Constantinople was also the Fall of the Roman Empire. Granted we call it the "Byzantine" Empire, but in reality, it was the Roman Empire. And Constantinople was the moment that the great world changing Empire ceased to be. I would call it significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.212.149 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Turks could not cut off trade through the Bosporus because the Genoese controlled the sea and trade routes. For a hundred years before 1453, most of the trade revenues were going through Pera (87%), rather than Constantinople.  The Turks had at that time (1453) a rather poor naval fleet, as shown in the sea battle between a few Genoese supply ships, verses dozens of Turkish warships during the siege.  I wasn't until Mehmed built the Rumeli Hisari that he could cut the shipping route through the Bosporus by cannon fire.  After the fall, Mehmed did cut the route on occasion, sometimes just to provide the point, but when passage was allowed, a heavy toll was placed greatly increasing the cost of goods.  This gave western Europeans the incentive to find an alternate route to the Far East as a large part of their tax revenues were collected from the spice/silk trades.  Its all in the economics... Dinky town   talk  08:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

European explorers eventually tried to reach India and China through other means because of their loss of Constantinople and Anatolia. The Conquering of Constantinople had an immense effect. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oversimplistic explanation. The cheapest means of transportation have typically been by sea, followed by rivers and canals. The more predominantly by sea a trade route is (barring piracy) the less expensive it is. The most economical trade route between India and most of of Europe remains from the eastern Mediterranean, through the Suez isthmus (possibly using the Nile delta), the seas around Arabia (Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea) to India. Any land portage is far more expensive than a sea passage of similar length. Today of course that route includes the Suez Canal. This is a major shipping lane today, and it is likely one that the Romans knew well. In the late 15th century the Turks never controlled any part of the land route. The Mamluks rulers of Egypt did throughout that time. If they stopped the transshipment of goods through their territory, then they and not the Ottoman Turks are to be named as the ones who caused Europeans to seek to go East by going West. Second-best was through what are now Syria and Iraq into the Persian Gulf, then into the Arabian Sea. The Turks at most cut off the Black Sea as an approach to the Silk Road, always an expensive way across a huge land mass, and they did so even when Constantinople was still a tiny Greek city-state. Barring a war, few powers stop a lucrative trade that they can tax or otherwise profit from.

Christopher Columbus sought an all-water route to the rich lands of the Far East, as did Vasco Da Gama, Ferdinand Magellan, and Henry Hudson. Costs dictate the routes used in transportation, and profits drive trade. Columbus simply failed to recognize how far the far East was from Spain and of course that there were two continents were in the way. As an impediment to trade between Christian Europe and either India or China, the Fall of Constantinople is vastly overrated. Constantinople falling or not, the Spanish and Portuguese would have been seeking new trade routes through the Atlantic either around Africa or directly west to China. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Unclear?
The article says the Ottomans had 70 ships, and 20 galleys, does this mean they had 70 ships that weren't galleys, and then 20 galleys, or 70 ships including 20 galleys? Oh and by the way, the page says the Genovese captain Longo was killed in action, when actually, he died during the early days of June 1453 due to his wounds from the battle, he wasn't actually killed in the final assault on Tuesday 29th May 1453. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.104.171 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses
Ottoman side: Unknown but heavy - citation needed. You got to be kidding me.. Obviously somebody trying to make dramatic this war like Thermopylae.. Well im sorry but this is not 400 BC. This is 1453 AC. Do you want to see heavy turkish loss? You cant find? Citation needed? I hope you will find about Turkish losses. For Gods sake.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.192.71 (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why dont you find yourself and help us improve the article instead of grumping about it? kazekagetr 06:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fallacy of the "Fall" of Constantinople
Earlier there have been discussions about "Fall of Constantinople" being biased - which certainly is. Some users claimed that an opposite example is "Fall of Granada" where a battle lost by an Eastern power is called a "fall", which was a fallacy because this article is called Battle of Granada right now and I cannot see from their discussions the reason it was changed, however I can only guess why - same reason as why this article is called the "Fall": Christian Point of View. Neither is the term "conquest" neutral since that represents Turco-Muslim point of view. I am suggesting to find a third option without inventing any new terms nor doing any historic revision but only by being a neutral Wikipedia user who is not blinded by fanatic nationalism or religion as unfortunately the most active users seem to be, both with users who see the Turks as the "Other" as well as some Turks who want this to be changed to conquest. As it looks right now, it is a shame for Wikipedia. Neutral but only among Westerners, yeah right! One solution could be "End of The Byzantine Empire", or something that would mark the end of Byzantine rule without suggesting biased words such as pity loss nor a glorious victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.75.82 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

How about The Capture of Constantinople. It was the first time the city was captured once and for all. For the Viking capture, another word can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.166.78 (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "Fall..." has been used for centuries. This was not the first time the city fell to invaders.  The Forth Crusade, and the subsequent reconquest in 1261, and numerous sackings during the early Roman, pre-Byzantine era.  The Vikings never took the city.  The Turks use the term "capture".  Leave it as the Fall... Dinky town   talk  08:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am from Turkey and I think "Fall of Constantinople" is true term. Because it is "Fall of Constantinople" not "Fall of Istanbul". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.99.223 (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That you are from Turkey does not matter.

The city was Constantinople before it came under Turkish rule and remained such for nearly five centuries. It did not get renamed Istanbul until the 20th century. The only way in which to make the title more specific is to add the year 1453 to it as in

Fall of Constantinople, 1453

which distinguishes the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople from any other takeover of Constantinople before 1453, as there has been none while the city was known as Constantinople. Any "Fall of Istanbul" would have be a reference to an event which has never happened -- such as conquest by Nazi Germany.Pbrower2a (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

it is wikipedia after all. a "so reliable source of knowledge edited by christians" of course it has to be through christian point of ivew. what did you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.145.56 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is the English wikipedia, so naturally would represent the perspective (not Point of View, that's sometghing slightly different) of the common or average English reader (most of whom are--you guessed it!--Christians). I guess Arabic or Turk wikipedias would represent it a bit differently. Hope this helps (and, by the way, English is my 2nd language and I happen to be non-Christian)--Nostro Fidelis (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Age of the Sultan
Was the Sultan Mehmet II 21 years old at the time (as per this article), or 22 (as per the article of Constantinople)?--Nostro Fidelis (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fall of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121213125432/http://www.aegean.gr:80/agios-therapontas/magazine/special/1453/Palaiologos.html to http://www.aegean.gr/agios-therapontas/magazine/special/1453/Palaiologos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * it's working.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Radu cel Frumos
Radu cel Frumos is an Ottoman commander who did participated in the siege of Constantinople. There is an information about this issue in the article of Radu cel Frumos on Wikipedia. I added this information to the info box. You can read more in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radu_cel_Frumos and if you find that it's not a good idea to add this information please write inform me.

E3.akpinar (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fall of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090611074715/http://www.encyclopedia.com:80/doc/1G1-155920054.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-155920054.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Miniature depicting siege
This image, supposedly a depiction of the 1453 siege of Constantinople, is also variously described as the siege of Jerusalem during one of the Crusades, the siege of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, or Charlemagne’s troops storming Rome. Especially the last option seems to me more plausible than what the current description says, as the picture shows a kingly-looking figure on the right whose crown appears to have a cross on top of it, and the image itself, a miniature, is sourced to an incunable of the medieval romance Ogier le Danois (Paris, Antoine Verard, c. 1498/1499), which is kept in the Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria di Torino. This romance is set in the time of Charlemagne, whose troops conquer Rome at some point in the story (see, p. 325). A facsimile of the Turin edition was published by K. Togeby in 1967, but it is not available on Google Books. The Turin incunable seems to be a “one-of-its-kind” version with a number of unique illustrations, and I have not been able to find this specific illustration in the digitized edition of Verard’s Ogier in Gallica. Is there someone here who happens to know more about the original context of this picture? Iblardi (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this piece of detective work. From what I can see, the style of our picture is consistent with those in the Paris online copy of Ogier you link to via Gallica, however, as you say, this specific illustration is not found in that copy . It could well be true that it is found in the Torino copy though. The modern critical edition you found, at pages 1540ff, has a table comparing the differences in illustration between the Paris copy (the one online via Gallica) and the Torino copy (allegedly the source of our picture). According to the table, there are the following siege scenes illustrated in the Torino copy: "Assaut de Rome par les Français" (ch. XI), "Siège de l’armée de Charlemagne devant Châteaufort" (ch. XIX; the Paris copy has an illustration of a different siege at the same position); "Prise de Jérusalem par les chrétiens" (ch. XLVIII), "Siège  de  la  ville  de  Chartres  par les païens" (ch. LVI). Our picture could represent any of these. Note that all these sieges are fictionalized events set in a legendary world of "Charlemagne", not actual historical sieges. No reference to Constantinople whatsoever in the whole book.
 * I'd strongly recommend removing the picture from all its current uses on Wikipedia. It's always disappointing to see how sloppy we often are with historic illustrations. This picture was uploaded in 2004 by User:Raul654, the longterm director of featured articles – sourced only to an unreliable random website that was in turn featuring it without any source information. Impossible to say how many of the dozens of websites that treat it as an illustration of Constantinople these days have taken that misinformation from the ten years it's been on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: It's been pointed out that Vérard and his contemporaries tended to treat these types of illustration almost like some kind of re-useable clipart (see here : "Like most of his contemporaries, Vérard shared woodcuts with other printers, and also like them, he re-used woodcuts. Critics have often railed against the repetition of woodcuts within a single book and their only vague correlation with the text. The same 'generic' scenes of battle serve to 'illustrate' a war, whatever the epoch, whoever the combattants.") So, it's quite conceivable that this battle scene image might also have been used somewhere else to illustrate Constantinople (be it the 1453 siege or some earlier one), but this particular colorized/painted version, if it comes from the Ogier book, clearly wasn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In the meantime I stumbled on this image which shows some of the text of the other page shining through at its margin. It is hardly readable, but after mirroring it I found that it appeared to match part of this page in the Gallica edition, which is the recto side of the folio on which the first siege is depicted. When comparing both images you should be able to make out the initial letters M[, e[, na[, aco[, co[, ma[, pe[, ne[, luy[, gr[, son[ (with long s), E[, which correspond with the initial words of line 27-38 of the Gallica page, Mais, eut, namon, acoup, courtain, mais, peut, ne, luy, grande, son, Et. In that case the miniature would represent the "Assaut de Rome par les Français" that you mentioned above. (The heading reads: "Comment le roy charlemaigne fist armer son ost pour aller assaillir romme et comment ... la ville fut prinse...") Iblardi (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, good job! In that case I guess we can consider the identification certain. I'll update the description on Commons accordingly. – This only leaves open the question why our version of the image is mirrored compared to that on the Amazon print . Since you could identify the text on the reverse side there, the orientation on the Amazon print would have to be the correct one, wouldn't it? (It's also the more plausible one, as in our version all the defenders appear to be left-handed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Amazon version should have the correct orientation, with Charles on the left and the figures being right-handed. A mirrored image of this miniature is apparently also used on the cover of the Canto edition of Steven Runciman's Fall of Constantinople 1453. Just to be sure, I uploaded a comparison of the two pictures here: and here: . The latter one (again, mirrored) juxtaposes the letters from the other page that are visible on both images, but the original image at Gallica is much clearer. Iblardi (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The featuring of domes on the top of most of the towers must explain how this image came to be so obstinately associated with Constantinople (other details, such as the shiny grey of the stones in fact do not concur with that idea). However towers in the Verard's Ogier source have exactly the same covering, and it's of a kind not entirely ignored with other European castles. It may also have been a visual convention for indicating Sarraceen held territory perhaps. --Askedonty (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Fall of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aegean.gr/agios-therapontas/magazine/special/1453/Palaiologos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

German sappers and miners?
The article says: "Many of the sappers were miners of German origin sent from Novo Brdo by the Serbian despot.". Is there any source that verifys that claim? While Germany and Bohemia were probably the center of the mining industry in that era, I was not aware that the majority of the Serb sapper contingent sent to Constantinople were made up of Germans. A source - ideally also a reference in the actual article - would be most welcome. ASchudak (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarifications on historical significance
I had attempted to add some clarifications in the lead because
 * It uses both the terms "Roman" and "Byzantine" without explaining the relationship. Average readers would not comprehend this.
 * It does not really clarify that this collapse (along with the collapses of the affiliated states of Trebizond and Epirus) marked the end of Roman/Greek statehood until the 19th century, a significant historical point.

Despite my offering references on the edit for the second point (the first one was not introducing new information, just clarifying what was already in the lead) JudeccaXIII and Chamboz have disputed both of these points and reverted my edits. Neither of these things is controversial. Chamboz seems to be nitpicking the wording (if that is the concern, the appropriate thing to do is to reword, not delete).

I have added a "dubious" marker since these editors are disputing what is already in the text. I submit that either they have to restore my edits (perhaps with different wording if they prefer) or have to remove what is already there (which would be wrong).

-- MC


 * First of all, I reverted your edit because it was an unsourced claim. Your other edit has been disputed before as the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire can be distinguishable from each other, but I'm not going to argue about that since most won't be able understand this as you said. However, your tag indicates you want to possibly gesture a personal attack per WP:PA. And you don't make demands from other editors to agree with you, especially over content you added yourself per WP:BRD. I'm not going to continue arguing with you since you had sourced the edit, but I can't say the same for Chamboz. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. But again:
 * The Roman/Byzantine thing you can debate if you like but you cannot strike what I wrote and leave the existing text which says the same thing (though in a vague way). That is the very definition of a personal attack. Either you choose to disagree with both or agree with both.
 * I mentioned your name in the "dubious" marker because you made the argument. I do not really agree but I put it there to encourage a constructive discussion (i.e. instead of an edit war). You are welcome to change the "reason" to whatever you consider appropriate.
 * -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone reverts you over content, that's not a personal attack, but putting editor's usernames in an article because you're not happy that you were reverted is a personal attack. Understand that WP:PA is policy for disruptive behavior for editors. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

sfn
would anyone mind if I convert the refs to sfn format? Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep the present system, which is easier and known to more people. Kablammo (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the present system? We have templates and named references, which is fine - but we also have inline short citations, which is not so good. Most people know how to use sfn, and it's cleaner. This article is pretty close to GA anyway - I don't see too much activity. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that named references continue in use and that any inline citations be converted to named references.--Jpbrenna (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any in-text citations in the body of the text, but I do see some in references that are more notes than references. I would prefer explanatory footnotes be in a "Notes" section, with the citations converted to full references below. In one case that I see, we already have a full citation of Runciman's Fall of Constantinople 1453, so it just becomes a question of adding a ref tag and an tag.--Jpbrenna (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have created a Notes section and moved all parenthetical notes there from the References section. I have also merged a lot of duplicate references to Nicolle and Runciman. I have also translated titles and amplified a few references on the way. There are still a few duplicates to be merged and incomplete references to be expanded, but we are down from 101 to 80 named references and everything is a lot cleaner and easier to navigate. It would seem there is no consensus to change to shortened footnotes.--Jpbrenna (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * is fine too, I just got used to sfn before I figured out how to add page numbers to named references. Thank you for cleaning up, it looks much better. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done some more cleanup. Unfortunately, one of the linked sources was dead; however, indications are that the material was excerpted from Nicol, so I merged them into the Nicol citation and added . I also merged citations for the Turkish translation of Nicol into this citation.--Jpbrenna (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seraphim Sytem, when you get a chance, could you check my translations of Turkish titles? I've mostly relied on a Turkish dictionary and intuition, since I don't know any Turkish grammar.--Jpbrenna (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

sure, is it just Nicol? can you post them here? Seraphim System ( talk ) 12:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was more than Nicol. I found multiple citations for Nicol, Nicolle, and Runciman for the same works and merged them together. Those I can remember off the top of my head. I will have to go back and check for the others. For one of the Nicol citations, the original citation read: The link is now dead, which is why I merged it into the other Nicol citation and added . I believe there were two instances of this that were merged into the other Nicol ref.--Jpbrenna (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sphrantzes Chronicle (several slightly different references citing the original Greek text) is another that was merged. I think eventually we should substitute an English translation for the original Greek text, that way it will be more accessible to readers here. For now I did my best to make a fuller cite of the one that claimed that the Greek original is found in the Vatican Library, and added my own translation of the title. I consider this a placeholder until we find a better solution. I left the Marios Phillipides translation of Sphrantzes separate, as I am thinking of eventually merging the Greek Sphrantzes references into that: the problem is I don't have a copy of the translation handy to find the page numbers and will have to wait for one to come to the library.--Jpbrenna (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fall of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607223345/http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/polyglots/greeks-in-italy.html to http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/polyglots/greeks-in-italy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ending of Strength section
The Strength section ends with the sentence "At this time cannons were being made." This needs a change, but I cannot make out the purpose of this sentence in that context.&mdash;VAN-ST (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparently a remnant from an out-of-place insertion; about to remove it.&mdash;VAN-ST (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox has become a mess, any chance of fixing it? 77.166.30.3 (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed some, but it needs to be resized. I'm working on that now. Even if that is fixed, it will still appear somewhat messy until page numbers are provided for some of the citations.--Jpbrenna (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I will be working on this later tonight. I think that I inadvertently removed or added something when I was templating references and fixing other things, and I haven't found it yet, so I will be going through the whole thing line-by-line tonight.--Jpbrenna (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tried removing the notes and notelist and several other things to get it to re-size and nothing works. I can't see that I'm removing any formatting from the infobox when I update the citations, so I'm not sure what is causing the problem.--Jpbrenna (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * John of Reading seems to have solved the problem. I'm not sure if some of the  tags were before and I broke them, or if adding extra characters made it necessary. --Jpbrenna (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks dude, my brain got fried after seeing the mess :)) 77.166.30.3 (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you think the notes in the infobox are necessary? The font is so tiny I can't even read them — I think it would be better to work them into the article (maybe as footnotes.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just updated the existing footnotes. They were out of order, so I used a template that automatically ordered them and should help keep any subsequent additions ordered as well. I am agnostic about where they should appear. I don't have any trouble reading them myself, but I can see how it would be an issue with phones and other smaller devices. --Jpbrenna (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would any other editors object to the infobox footnotes being worked into the article? If not, I am going to be bold and create a footnotes section for the article, since Jpbrenna is agnostic (indifferent?) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are going to move them, I think that they should be merged into the existing Notes section instead of a new "Footnotes" section. You should be able to do this by simply converting the tags in the infobox to  . If you want them grouped separate from the other notes, but still in the Notes section, you could create a new group, perhaps calling it "ibn" for "Infobox Notes", add a template for that, and then create subsections called "Infobox Notes" and "Article Notes" to contain them. But I would first wait to see whether a consensus exists for moving them from the infobox. --Jpbrenna (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your contributions and participation! I'm late to this discussion, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but the various estimates and citations don't belong there (per WP:INFOBOX, and MOS:INFOBOX). So I removed the here and replaced them with the Ottoman Archival data numbers and a single note mentioning the western estimates.


 * end of byzantine empire:


 * Belligerents:, , ,


 * Commanders:
 * Orhan Çelebi


 * Byzantine land forces:     -12,000,
 * 600 Ottoman defectors


 * Byzantine naval forces:


 * Byzantine Casualties: ,


 * Ottoman Land Forces:     ,  100,000 – 160,000  –200,000
 * 70 cannons 14 large and 56 small caliber) ,


 * Ottoman Naval Forces: * 70 ships, 20 galleys
 * 90 – 126 ships


 * Ottoman Casualties:

These sources belong in the body of the article. If one of them isn't, please restore it there, not to the infobox. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Entitled?
The "Plundering phase" section opens with "Mehmed II had promised to his soldiers three days to plunder the city, to which they were entitled." This seems unclear, so I substituted "Mehmed II gave his soldiers three days to plunder the city, as he had promised them."

I can't read the ref, but even if the ref says they were entitled, that's a matter of opinion I guess. I would think that "...to which they were thus entitled" or "...to which they were by custom entitled" is more what we're wanting to say here? (I hope it's not "...to which they were entitled ''by natural right".) Not sure, so I made the change even tho I can't read the ref, being confident that that's what was meant. Herostratus (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The Megali Idea passage is misleading
It should be noted that the war was fought in anatolia, and Greece was never promised the city of Constantinople in the treaty of sevres, the Greeks had drawn up a plan to capture the city after their defeat in the asian minor but there was never an attempt to occupy the city during that war, so the passage is a bit misleading. SJCAmerican (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ἅλωσις τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Byzantine Greek?
Article indicates that Ἅλωσις τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως is Byzantine Greek. What is Byzantine about that phrase? Lexicon 1:


 * "ἅλωσις, εως, ἡ (cp. ἁλίσκομαι ‘be taken’; Pind., Hdt. et al.; Jer 27:46; Jos., Ant. 2, 250; 5, 261; SibOr 4, 89; Tat.; Mel., P. 26, 181; 56, 408) capture, catching of animals for food (so Aristot., HA 593a, 20; 600a, 3; Epict. 4, 1, 29) γεγεννημένα εἰς ἅ. καὶ φθοράν born to be caught and killed 2 Pt 2:12.

Lexicon 2:
 * "ἅλ-ωσις, εως, Ion. ιος, ἡ, capture, Pi. O. .42)10(11).42, Hdt. 1.5, 3.156, A. Ag. 589, etc.; δαΐων ἅ. conquest by enemy, Id. Th. 119: means of conquest, Sophocles Ph. 61.

I suppose you could say that the Κωνσταντινουπόλεως in genitive case implies the existence of the Byzantine era with the naming of Constantinople. But I don't see anything philologically "Byzantine Greek" in the phrase. In fact, didn't the Byzantines write Attic or Atticistic Greek?

(PeacePeace (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC))

Incorrect Citation
Reference 10 in the paragraph headed "State of the Byzantine Empire," located in the second paragraph is citing the claim "The plague killed half of the population of Constantinople." However, going to that source makes no mention of this statistic, it instead says that the Plague killed half of the Britons. The source only mentions that the plague killed thousands of Constantinople, not "half of Constantinople." 199.8.23.104 (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2019
Fall of Constantinople → Conquest of Constantinople – The city was conquered by Muslim Turks in this battle and remains in Muslim Turkish hands ever since. The name Fall gives a negative notion about the conquest. Picks a side, and violates WP:NPOV. What is the reason that this name "Fall" has been picked in the first place? KasimMejia (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Furthermore I'd like to state that the word "fall" is WP:EUPHEMISM and is not used in any other article/battle let alone in an article/battle title. KasimMejia (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support because the city (Istanbul) remains in the hands of the Turks after the conquest and is now the largest city of Turkey. Khestwol (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I do not understand the arguments about the fact that the city "remains in Muslim Turkish hands" And what from this? The argument that "the word "fall" is not used in any other article/battle" is erroneous: see Fall of Saigon, Fall of Berlin (1806). And I don’t see why the word “fall” "Picks a side, and violates WP:NPOV." See The Fall of Berlin (film) or Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy. In any case, the "Conquest of Constantinople" is no more neutral. If you need a completely neutral word - then "battle", but such a name is less recognizable (WP:COMMONNAME).--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference between this and the two "falls" you've linked is that this was a battle +500 years ago. That resulted in the city changing hands/language/culture/ethnicity/religion permanently, therefore the word conquest fits it better, similar to Early Muslim conquests. We are not calling the Muslim conquest of Syria or Iraq or Iran, "Fall of Syria" "Fall of Iraq" "Fall of Iran" are we? This should be the same with this. I know you're gonna say, well Fall of Berlin is +200 years ago. This would be true but Berlin Fell, and was captured back after about 8 years afterwards and never fell again. Thus when it comes to the "Fall of Constantinople", "Conquest of Constantinople" is a better defining term considering the changes regarding language/culture/ethnicity/religion. KasimMejia (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference between this and the two "falls" you've linked is that this was a battle +500 years ago. -- Well, and what about Fall of Tenochtitlan?--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say the reason that was called Fall instead of a Conquest is because 100.000 to 240.000 natives were killed in the battle. There seems to be a genocidal touch at that fall/conquest. Furthermore, the natives compared to the Romans did not survive one bit. There was never a standing native empire in the Americas after the European conquest. Though when Constantinople was conquered, Europeans/Christians did not vanish like the natives. Rome never fell and neither did Western Europe. KasimMejia (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree that "Rome never fell." (Fall of the Western Roman Empire). In the same way, Orthodox Constantinople fell and Muslim Istanbul appeared in its place.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Rome was not genocided like the native Americans were. +98% natives killed after European conquest. KasimMejia (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Whether you call it a "fall" or a "conquest", either way presents the same event from one point of view. NPOV requires that we present articles "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", not that we eliminate all wording that somebody objects to based on their own point of view.  With respect to article titles, the policy explains, "[w]hile neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."  It's a cliché that "history is written by the victors".  Sometimes it's not, particularly when, as here, the topic concerns Greek and Roman history.  The fall of Constantinople is a turning point in the history of western civilization; a sharp dividing line between the last remnant of the classical world and everything since.  The current title follows the majority of scholarly and historical sources, and the overwhelming majority of English-language sources.  It's by far the more recognizable of the alternatives.  All I have to say about the argument that "fall" is a euphemism is that it's been standard English for centuries, is used in scholarly literature, and the claim seems to be little more than a distraction.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Commonest term in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lean oppose. The sources often use that form. I may accept siege of Constantinople (1453) though, but I don't think it's worth the hassle. T8612  (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Siege of Constantinople (1453) This is much better than the current name because it's neutral and inline with every other siege. The name "Fall" has not been used in every other 20+ sieges. KasimMejia (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There were too many sieges of Constantinople. I Oppose for reason of Recognizability--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The word Fall is just POV, it implies that the city "fell" as in it was devastated or plundered. Meanwhile it became the capital of a much stronger empire, it was not destroyed one bit. The Church Hagia Sophia was turned into a Mosque and the paintings in it kept. KasimMejia (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The word Fall is just POV, it implies that the city "fell" as in it was devastated or plundered -- This is an erroneous statement. The term "fall" is completely neutral. When they want to focus on plunder, an article is called, for example Sack of Constantinople.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fall is not neutral. Do you for example call Battle of Raqqa (2017) "Fall of Raqqa". No, because that would favor ISIS. Similar to how the current title is favoring Byzantine. KasimMejia (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While this proposal seems to proceed from the notion that "Fall of Constantinople" implies a negative point of view toward what the Turkish forces would have regarded as a glorious victory, the Turks themselves would have viewed it positively using the same words: just as the Allies in World War II cheered the Fall of Berlin—to the Germans it was a defeat, to the Allied forces a victory, but in both cases a "fall". And yes, I think the same would apply to Raqqa.  If you're anti-ISIS, it's a good thing that it "fell" before your forces.  The word can be viewed either positively or negatively depending on which side you're on, and in assuming that it must be negative, you're actually choosing to view it from the side of the defeated Byzantines, which is ironic since the proposal seeks to do the opposite by changing the language.  Reviewing this talk page's archives, I note that the same or similar proposals have been made repeatedly and defeated each time, and that the reasoning there was clearer—hence my point.  A "fall" can be positive as well as negative, and which it is depends largely on the reader.  As such, it clearly comports with NPOV.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In Turkey the battle is never referred to as Fall of Constantinople, its always referred as the Conquest of Constantinople, which is logical considering the city became Turkish and we still live there. It changed religiously and culturally maybe ethnically too. Calling it a Fall is lacking information wise. The word conquest covers that the city changed significantly due to being conquered. Similar to Early Muslim conquests. Fall gives the notion that the city Fell, but not much changed aside from being captured. See my point more now? This is probably why the requesters below insisted on it too. KasimMejia (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I also don't think this battle is remembered in any country in the world as much as it is in Turkey so its not a POV to call it by the Turkish called name WP:COMMONNAME. KasimMejia (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it most certainly is. Reams have been written about it in English and other European languages. It was one of the seminal moments in European history. And in English it is overwhelmingly called the Fall of Constantinople. And this is English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This being English Wikipedia does not mean this is to be written from English point of view. See WP:NPOVTITLE. KasimMejia (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is written from an English-language point of view. And in English-language sources it is most commonly called the Fall of Constantinople. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a language point of view, it may well be commonly called by its POV name towards Byzantine by historians. That doesn't mean the title gets to violate WP:NPOVTITLE. KasimMejia (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course there is. And it doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no POV in the accepted scholarship of the English language. Such arguments are in themselves POV. Dr.   K.  16:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The move request is just WP:JDL by a Turkish nationalist. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You should see WP:GF I am not a Turkish Nationalist, and you are not allowed smear random words (WP:ADHOMINEM) at people, whoever you wish. You will be banned if you continue this type of behavior and should take this as a friendly warning by a non admin user. KasimMejia (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Seraphim, it's been a while. Not to worry, SPI coming soon. Khirurg (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw the request due to overwhelming opposition. KasimMejia (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See also: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
This is a purely scholastic challenge and belongs to the Latin church philosophy of medieval universities (Scholasticism). It has nothing to do with Constantinople and the philosophy of the Greek church.N Jordan (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

When Cordoba falls (Reconquesta) when Istanbul falls Fall of Constantinople.
THATS THE SIDED HISTORY GUYS. Tarik289 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it has been besieged 21 times, this was the last, thus fall. Beshogur (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes because they conquered 21 times right :D? Tarik289 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents
The list of belligerents is a little bit confusing. Technically, we should list only nations or entities that were in the status of war. Other than Ottomans and Byzantines, none of the listed nations should be qualified that way. 2,000 foreigners indeed defended the city but they were not on walls of Constantinople on behalf of their governments or rulers. For example, Giovanni Giustiniani was not there on behalf of the Republic of Genoa. Gabriele Trevisano was not there on behalf of the Republic of Venice but as a volunteer. Only Cardinal Isidore of Kiev came on behalf of Pope with 200 solders. Everybody else was there voluntarily or as a mercenary. On the Ottoman side, 1500 cavalrymen were requested from Serbian Despot for a war against the Karamanids, not for the siege of Constantinople. N Jordan (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The pope hired three Genoese ships filled with food and had them sent to Constantinople in March. They arrived in April, joined by a Byzantine Imperial galley that had purchased grain in Sicily. The Genoese ships also carried weapons and armed contingents paid for by the pope. The Venetian Senate voted on 19 February to send two transports filled with food, followed by fifteen armed galleys with troops, funded by a special tax on Venetian merchants sailing for the Levant. The departure of this latter force was delayed until 17 April, but it did sail -- and was still anchored at Chios when Constantinople fell. (Runciman 80-81; 100, 160). I believe Isidore actually paid expenses for the troops he took with him out of his own pocket, but I don't have a source for that at hand, and I think he was already there before the papal/imperial ships arrived. Venice did not declare war on the Ottomans, but sending food and armed galleys was at least something akin to, say, the American Lend Lease program in World War II -- "We're not picking sides here, but..." I don't know if we should call the Venetian Republic "belligerents", especially since they arrived too late, but I would certainly call them "involved." Genoa didn't send their own fleet, but their Bailiff in Constantinople was empowered to choose whether to fight the Turks, and he did. They let the pope hire their ships and troops, so again, not totally uninvolved. But as you pointed out, I don't believe either state declared war on the Ottomans at any point. I'm not sure how to treat the infobox, but I lean toward leaving it as-is. 04:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Jpbrenna (talk)
 * Hello. It is, of course, possible to replace the term "Republic of Venice" by "Venetian volunteers", "Republic of Genoa" by "Genoese volunteers" etc. or use term "volunteers" as a heading above them. --Dragovit 10:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone keeps adding Serbian Despotate as belligerent for no reason.

Muslim quran presented as fact, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines
The legacy section used to say ‘prophecies’ and cited the quran as if it was fact. I’ve edited it out

If WP:CHOPSY say that the quran is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say is fringe, not what the Muslims says is fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the quran may only be analyzed by mainstream quran scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom.1Mark the Spark1 (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1Mark the Spark1, please don't repost here verbatim a warning that you yourself received from another editor at your own talk page, User talk:1Mark the Spark1. If you have an argument that is directly relevant to this specific thread, you should present it. On the substance, primary sources, such as the Bible or the the Quran can be used in some situations, including for quotations. However, such usage does need to occur in context and should generally be supported by a discussion relying from secondary sources providing such context. The section "Prophesies" that you removed did not cite any secondary sources (scholarly or otherwise) and did not provide any context explaining the relevance of the section to the article. So your removal of this material was justified, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Conquest of Constantinople
I would like to propose a change of name to the article from Fall to Conquest of Constantinople because the city did not fall it was conquered by Mehmed.

Thank you. Al14always (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion in the section just above: Talk:Fall_of_Constantinople. Dr.   K.  04:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, that was already discussed 2 months ago. Based on the fact that 30,000 civilians were enslaved or forcibly deported (the population before the siege was about 50,000), and that most of the city’s women were raped and enslaved, maybe we should call it “Constantinopole Genocide.”--N Jordan (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And what source uses this term? Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you attack a city with a population of around 40,000, kill 4,000, rape most of the women and enslave 30,000 – that would be the closest description of that event. However, we don’t use that term in English language, but we also don’t use the term Conquest of Constantinople. I don’t want to rename the article, I just want some people to stop repeating the same requests every 3 months. --N Jordan (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ^Talks like he's been there during the conquest while all his sources about his presumptions are western. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.175.181 (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Term "Conquest of" is being used in English Wikipedia all the time. "Fall" sounds like city degrading by itself without an external force and doesn't actually reflect the event clearly.
 * What you describe is a forced take-over of a city. These kinds of events happen in a "forcefully taken" city, hence "conquered city". Also from another view "fall of" hints that the city was destroyed and stopped existing. For example, Fall of Western Roman Empire.


 * Simple search shows the example of other events in Wiki. So either change the titles of all the other "conquest events" in the English Wikipedia, or stop pushing for an exception over this article.


 * From the "genocide" reach I can tell you are biased. If we assume every brutal war aftermath with civilians losing their lives is "genocide" we should just throw the word "war" to garbage and use "genocide" instead. Pre 19th Century Nationalism idea of "race" or "ethnicity" was different than how it is right now. Groups of people fought against each other to obtain what other group has. Killing in sake of killing certain people is a very late concept in history. We can tell Ottoman's primary objective was not killing people because of their identity mostly because same people did continue to exist in the Empire. They wanted the city and it's contents. Stereotypical example but I don't see Jews continuing to exist in Nazi occupied territories if WWII ended by Nazi victory. But I digress.


 * Wikipedia is not a place for pushing political agendas, try to be objective to the history. There is nothing glorifying over term "conquest" it just describes the event better linguistically. So stop pushing over "fall" it just feels out of place. --Shtwn (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Article titles. Fall of Constantinople is the accepted term for this event in English. Sack of Constantinople is the accepted term for the 1204 event described in that article. Both of these were "conquests", but that isn't what they are called by English speakers. One is called the Sack, because it was an organized looting and takeover of the city that was damaging to, but did not permanently end the Byzantine political order, which survived for a time in Nicaea, and eventually retook the city of Constantinople -- by conquest. The 1453 event permanently ended the Byzantine Empire. There was no real survival of government elsewhere the way there had been in 1204: the Principality of Theodoro never re-conquered the city and re-asserted Byzantine authority over a significant territory as had happened from Nicaea -- hence the term "Fall". Rome was conquered many times, and sacked so many times that there is a Sack of Rome disambiguation page. But there is only one Fall that is spoken of in English. It may be different in other languages. The Greek term for this event translates best into English as "Capture", and the Turkish term as "Conquest". But that is not the convention in English, nor in, for instance, Spanish, where it is called Caída de Constantinopla -- Fall of Constantinople, nor Russian, nor a number of other languages. Are you going to re-title those articles too? There is no political agenda in recognizing the facts of common use. I rather suspect that it may be you who are pushing one. Jpbrenna (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems that most Christian nations saw the conquest of the city as a "fall" for religious reasons, and that's definitely reflected in the way they referred to the event. The question is whether should Wikipedia in 2020 keep using the same subjective terminology rather than selecting a more neutral one. I think that if we're trying to serve as a neutral source of information, the name of the article should change, regardless of traditional biased terminologies. Daniel1 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

N Jordan is total idiot Tarik289 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Tarik, your comment talks about you - not me. Bottom line - this is English Wikipedia, and we use terminology that is established in the English language and Western historiography. End of story. You are just wasting our time repeating your requests every few months. N Jordan (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

N Jordan, does Wikipedia endorse eurocentricsm in English Wikipedia? I think Jpbrenna already put an excellent explanation. It should stay there to avoid recurring requests. Illegal c (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding inclusion of Serbian despotate on the infobox
and an elite infantry corps, and thousands of Christian troops, notably 1,500 Serbian cavalry that Đurađ Branković was forced to supply as part of his obligation to the Ottoman sultan. This is enough to add it to the infobox. I want to read other users' opinions. Also going to report the IP user, ignoring the sources, claiming it's fake or neglecting this sentence. The source says "allegedly" taking the account of Konstantin Mihailović. Also it says cavalry, which is impossible to being janissaries as the ip user claims. These are the options:

1. Add both to the article and infobox

2. Add only to the article not infobox

3. Remove completely

reasonings? Beshogur (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources? Where is any prior discussion? Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See, and . Some meatpuppets removed the content. Beshogur (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * According to this, your sources don't support the presence AT ALL. Where in your sources is the relevant text? I cannot find anything there. … … ps please strike out and stop making remarks about "meatpuppets". If you have proof take it to the right place, if you don't, it simply discredits YOU. As incidentally do lurid UNSOURCED claims about nuns being raped which you have been edit warring into the article. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not place the original content. Various ips had been deleting the stuff. See p. 395 of Militarization of the Serbian State under Ottoman Pressures. And please stop using caps, try reading Please don't shout. Beshogur (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The use of janissaries should be mentioned. There is no disputing that they were there, along with Serbian sappers. As for the infobox, it is inappropriate, as it suggests, contrary to fact, that the non-independent Serbian state was a co-belligerent with the Ottoman Empire. The Serbian despotate was an Ottoman vassal state at this point, with an Ottoman governor, as was Wallachia. The Genoese, the Papacy etc. were independent of the Byzantine Empire, but allied with it to defend Constantinople. They had a choice as to whether to send ships or troops, or not. The Christian vassal states of the Ottoman Empire weren't fully independent and did not have a choice as to whether or not they had to send a quota of their own troops, or to let the Ottomans requisition children as janissaries from their villages, so they aren't really allied co-belligerents. The Germans had Polish conscripts on the beaches during Operation Overlord, and there were French volunteers fighting on the Eastern Front in the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne, but in neither case do we list Poland or France as co-belligerents with Nazi Germany, because neither state had a choice in the matter of its citizens being so employed, and in fact their governments-in-exile were on the Allied side, and totally against this. Even Vichy France didn't declare war on the Soviet Union, it just allowed recruitment of French soldiers by the Germans. Jpbrenna (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Invited by the bot. As it is, you're going to have a hard time getting external feedback on this. Suggest starting by clarifying that question. (Add what to the info box) Also suggest explaining a bit more. Right know a respondent would need to get really deep in and much more knowledgeable on the topic to give a good response. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * addition of Serbian Despotate to the infobox. Allegedly, to a first hand source back then, Serbian monarch had to send 1,500 cavalry to aid Mehmed in his siege. Beshogur (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. North8000 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, but as formatted and partially explained this would take either a lot of specialized expertise or else an hour of study here to answer responsibly. And I have neither. I suspect that this will be the case with most other potential outside contributors.    About all that I can say is that if it looks credible that they participated with 1,500 troops then they should be in the info box and the body of the article.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Serbians had to send cavalry, and I believe infantry and miners/sappers as Ottoman vassals. That's not disputed. That doesn't mean they were an independent co-belligerent who should be included in the infobox. If you look at other infoboxes, they generally only include independent co-belligerents. That's why we don't have the various constituents of the Stato da Màr listed as belligerents in the numerous Ottoman–Venetian wars: they weren't independent participants. It's why the Dominion of Canada, which had to separately declare war on the Axis to legally enter World War II, is listed as a belligerent in the Operation Overlord infobox, while the British Raj is not -- there were Indian soldiers on D-Day, but their home government did not have the power to declare war independent of the United Kingdom, while Canada's did. Canada is not listed as a belligerent in the World War I battles, like the Battle of the Somme because prior to the Statute of Westminster 1931, Canada had no choice in such matters: that's why the infobox says "British Empire" instead. Jpbrenna (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * bad comparison. Canada was a colony back then. Stato de Mar is not even a state. Serbian despotate was a state and was once independent. It's not that the Ottoman sultans appointed them as despots. See Battle of Vienna. Why are the Crimean Khanate and other vassals listed? Beshogur (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's a perfect one. The Serbian Despotate was an Ottoman vassal state at this time. The Stato de Mar was separately administered by the the Savi agli Ordini; different councils of state were responsible for the the administration of the Dogado and the Terra Firma, although all these officials came from the same Senate. There were differences in their internal legal systems. We might view it as a state-within-a-state, which certainly seems to be how the Venetians viewed it. But we don't list it as a separate belligerent, since ultimately, all three governing councils reported to the Signoria and the Doge. Certain laws and local customs might prevail in local legal matters, but the decision to go to war or not was vested in the supreme Venetian council. By contrast, the Crimean Khanate eventually acknowledged Ottoman suzerainty, but had not only total independence locally, but continued to conduct foreign policy separate from the Ottoman Porte. They signed their own treaties with the Zaprozhian Cossacks and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Ottomans paid the Crimean Tatars for the use of their cavalry; they impressed Serbian cavalry as a feudal levy. It doesn't matter whether the sultan appointed Serbian despots or not. They had full power to direct and coerce the actions of the Serbian state, regardless of who was in charge of it. Serbia was not an independent co-belligerent in this campaign. That's what matters. As for the Battle of Vienna infobox, frankly, I think it is wrong and doesn't conform to the vast majority of other war and battle infoboxes on Wikipedia. Moldavia couldn't even muster its traditional feudal levies in 1683, so thoroughly had its military system been integrated into the Ottoman. It was in no sense independent in foreign and military policy, and was not an independent co-belligerent. Jpbrenna (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 1 I had a look at the full text of the two sources provided and  and they certainly say that 1500 cavalry were contributed from Serbia to Ottomans, at the siege Constantinople, according to Konstantin Mihailović. While there is some questioning of it in the Taylor and Francis source, they don't discount it. Overall, I think that's enough to include them as part of the forces in both the article and the infobox.  Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Add to forces both in the article and the infobox, but not to the belligerents. I think the presence of Serbian forces is not disputed. I don't think that we should add Serbia to the list of belligerents as this is how the sources describe the siege of Constantinople. I have never seen anyone saying "Constantinople was taken by the Ottomans and Serbians." Alaexis¿question? 08:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Add to forces both in the article and the infobox, but not to the belligerents. Jpbrenna (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Casualties and losses
In this revision, I have updated the ottoman losses to 18.000 with a cite but it's reverted by @Wham2001 What's wrong with source? <b style="color:black;font-size:14px">𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 </b><b style="font-size:18px;padding-top:5px;color:#ffc107;">℣</b> 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * To quote the source directly: As always, casualty figures varied wildly: Nestor-Iskander gave the number of Ottoman dead at 18,000; Barbaro a more realistic 200. In other words, the source says that the number of casualties is uncertain and the 18,000 figure is unrealistic.  I can't see how adding a casualty number which is called out as unrealistic by the very source we're relying on to support it improves what we have in the article currently.  Wham2001 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks :) <b style="color:black;font-size:14px">𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 </b><b style="font-size:18px;padding-top:5px;color:#ffc107;">℣</b> 04:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Dates are Julian
I'm pretty sure the dates given are those according to the Julian calendar, given that May 29, 1453 is a Sunday and not a Tuesday; the Gregorian date would be June 7. I think this should be noted somewhere. 76.10.12.27 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No. It fell on 20 Jumada al-awwal 857 according to Hijri, and this makes it 29 May 1453. Beshogur (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks like it was backconverted from the Gregorian date, which is not an uncommon occurrence over the past two-ish centuries. Here's a source I found confirming that the date is Julian (https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1462271); I was unable to find any that confirmed it is indees Gregorian.76.10.12.27 (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)