| Title | : | 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1401308503 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781401308506 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 304 |
| Publication | : | First published August 10, 2005 |
1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West Reviews
-
Constantinople, The Last Great Siege 1453, by Roger Crowley is a thoroughly entertaining, rich, detailed, violent, intriguing and riveting story of one of the most significant periods of history.
The results of this period endure to this day.
The author systematically proceeds through this epic story – and thankfully commences with some wonderfully drawn maps of Asia Minor showing the geography of the area which made Constantinople such an important strategic location.
We learn of the origins of this city, which came about when Constantine the Great decided to move the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium which he renamed Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) in around 330 CE. We learn about Constantine’s conversion to Christianity (on his deathbed admittedly – better late than never!!) So letting that sink in, he moved the Capital of the Roman Empire and also started the legitimacy of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Constantine the Great certainly did deserve this moniker – the weight of these two decisions still bear down upon us. The Eastern Roman Empire morphed into the Byzantine Empire.
The Byzantine Empire survived for a thousand years.
Enter Sultan Mehmet II of the Islamic Ottomans. The author outlines the fascinating story of how this fascinating man was raised and how he came to be Sultan, the man who finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantines. Admittedly, the Byzantine Empire was in dramatic decline in the 1400s – but the legendary walls proved a formidable barrier over the centuries and repelled no less than around 23 attempted invasions.
The Byzantines were hidebound by a thousand years of ceremony and tradition, the Ottomans were quick-witted, flexible and open
The author leaves you with the impression the Byzantines were a stodgy bunch, ill-equipped, weighed down by their history and in decline, whereas the Ottomans were fleet footed, the new boys on the block, wealthy, and technologically innovative.
Very importantly, Mehmet engaged a Hungarian Engineer named Orban to make MASSIVE cannons which were fundamental in breaking down the walls during the siege. These monsters could only be fired 5 or 6 times a day and needed to be cooled with olive oil between shots (half ton balls) otherwise the brass barrel would crack. Imagine the thunder these people would have heard with each shot – both defenders and attackers, this was the biggest gun ever made at the time. It must have been terrifying. Incidentally, Orban offered to make these cannons for the Byzantines but Constantine XI couldn’t afford them. These guns were 27ft long, had a diameter of 30in, walls made of Bronze 30in thick and fired balls of stone weighing around half a ton – WOW!!
Note: The first Emperor of the Byzantines was named Constantine (the Great) and his mother was named Helen. Well, the last Byzantine Emperor was also called Constantine (the XI) and his mother was also called Helen. You couldn't make that up!!
The author spends some time detailing the schism between the different schools of thought in Christianity which resulted in Catholicism – based in Rome; and Orthodoxy, based in Constantinople. To me, this was one of my favourite parts of the story and resulted in some real difficulties for Constantine XI when requesting assistance from the Catholic Church in the West. To demonstrate the hardened differences in thinking between Eastern and Western Christianity, Pope Gregory VII said:
”It is far better for a country to be under the rule of Islam than be governed by Christians who refuse to acknowledge the rights of the Catholic Church.
Well, perhaps this is one reason the expected fleet of ships from Venice never arrived in time to assist Constantine XI defend his city.
To further highlight the animosity between these two branches of Christianity, St Mark Eugenicus a 15th Century Greek Orthodox Theologian, highlighted the lack of Christian cohesion when he said:
Flee from the papists as you would from a snake and from the flames of a fire.
One recurring theme in this book is the fact the Ottomans ruled their vassals with remarkable tolerance. Subjects were not compelled to resign their Christian faith and they could worship and pray as they wished (NB: the Ottomans were far from angelic in lots of other ways though).
There was also an interesting arrangement regarding conditions of surrender during a siege. If the defending city refused to surrender they would be subject to 3 days of plunder if they succumbed. In fact, the reward of plunder was a main motivation for many of the Ottoman soldiers – and this they did with gusto. The pages concerning this part of the book described scenes of murder, rape, torture and capturing people for slavery were quite confronting. It must have been horrific.
This battle was brutal.
This book is much more than a story of the invasion of a city. It is a story about 2 great leaders – particularly Mehmet II. You will learn about an emerging empire and a declining one, the author tells of terrific struggles between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Islam. We also get to understand the strategic importance of Constantinople/Istanbul and some of the natural phenomena that make the area so beautiful. We also get to understand some of the challenges this geographical region poses with regards to daily life, and also how this applies to military conflict, and then there’s THOSE CANNONS. The military story is an epic one.
I just loved this book, it was everything I wanted it to be. It has even more whet my appetite to go to Istanbul as soon as this wee little RNA virus decides to start behaving.
I highly recommend this, even if history isn’t really your thing.
5 Stars -
Constantinople was the greatest city of the ancient world.
People beyond the Roman empire called it "The City".
Since its founding many different armies attempted to capture it and failed.
This book produces the vision of a great sand castle built at the edge of the high tide.
Waves of armies flowed towards the castle and retreated.
To the defenders of the city each retreat made them feel that they could repel the next attack.
Sultan Mehmet planned his war against Constantinople with careful detail to every advantage.
Previously city walls had been built to withstand armies and siege weapons.
Now the walls had to face cannon and gunpowder.
An amazing piece of history brought to life.
Enjoy! -
"Greeks, Latins, Germans, Hungarians and Czechs from all the Christian countries were on the side of Turks. Oh, the wickedness of denying Christ!"-Archbishop and Eyewitness to the Fall of Constantinople
*************
I had mixed reactions towards this book. It does check all of the boxes: historical outlines of the earlier Byzantine and Ottoman empires, character sketches of main players in the siege, religious and ethnographic background material, and a military-political account at the time of the conquest. Roger Crowley writes clearly and is very popular as a naval history author. He offers simple explanations of the forces at work where there were multiple and complex factors.
The trouble is the conquest was not a 'Clash of Islam and the West' as the title suggests. Holy wars mask political and economic goals. The Fourth Crusade, sent by the Pope to rescue Jerusalem from Muslims, sacked Constantinople's Christians instead in 1204, funding the rise of Venetian and Genoese trading states. More than piety was involved but the irony isn't dwelled upon. That late medieval people were religious is certainly true to a large extent.
Mehmed II became sultan of the Ottoman empire in 1444 at the age of twelve. His father had tried and failed to sieze Constantinople in 1421 and it was a dream of the son as well. By 1453 the empire surrounded the city with Anatolia, the Balkans, and Greece in Muslim hands. Mehmed's first move was to build a fortress on Europe's side of the Bosphorus to control and tax shipping between the Black Sea and Aegean. Constantine XI led the Byzantine Greeks.
Crowley cites the Great Schism of 1054 between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as the reason little help came from Constantine's Christian brethren. The split caused disunity within the city between the supporters and opponents of a reconciliation. A detailed description of three tiered defensive walls and development of artillery for siege warfare is given. The Ottoman military was unmatched in Europe for discipline and efficiency.
One aspect of the Ottoman enterprise that argues against a purely religious sectarianism is pervasive collaboration with Christians. From cannon makers and boat builders to cavalry and infantry the conquest was a multicultural affair. It is likely that Mehmed's mother was European. More than fifty thousand Ottoman soldiers converged on the city from Asia and Europe on Easter Sunday and set camp at the wall. Loot was as great a lure as a place in paradise.
For fifty three days less than ten thousand Byzantine troops defended the twelve mile perimeter. Half were Venetian and Genoese volunteers. A chain stretched across the Golden Horn reduced the line of defense by four miles. Four miles abutted the land where Mehmed's forces were arrayed. His guns were wheeled up, the largest nine meters long firing thirty inch balls. This size cannon hadn't been faced before, offered to but turned down by Byzantium.
The rest can be summarized as what happens when you bring catapults and crossbows to an artillery battle. Parades of holy relics and golden icons on fifty foot walls didn't turn the tide. Medieval chivalry was proffered for surrender and conversion, or pay a head tax, but refused by Constantine. The city was breached and three days of rape and pillage ensued. Thirty thousand were enslaved, half ransomed or released. The Ottomans survived until 1922.
The bulk of the sources are from three Greeks who wrote at or near the time, Kritovoulos, Sphrantzes and Doukas. The Turks left few written records. It is an unusual example of a history written by the conquered. The book is useful for the events of the siege. Military matters are a primary concern and they comprise much of the story. Runciman's 1965 'Fall of Constantinople' may fill in the gaps. There aren't many recent Ottoman histories written in English. -
An eminently readable and detailed account of the May 1453 Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire. I enjoyed this account and learned a lot.
Background to the conflict was presented, then the personalities of the two protagonists, Constantine XI, aged 49, and Mehmet II, a young man of 21. We are taken through the conflict, point by point. There are many quotes from accounts of that period. The Ottomans have swallowed up most of the Byzantine Empire already; and Mehmet thinks of himself as a new Alexander. Instead of heading east, he turns his thoughts to the west, Constantinople being a convenient launching pad to any further conquests. We see preparations for a protracted siege. Mehmet's army is the first professionally paid army since that of the classical Romans. Byzantines, along with Venetian and Genoese enclaves, prepare for defense. Mehmet finds two weak spots in the fortifications and by concentrating on them, after many days, successfully besieges the city. The strong many-layered fortification and water on many sides fail to protect the city. Mehmet uses the classic siege techniques: a fleet, blockade, and most successfully, artillery bombardment with giant cannons. Siege towers, a more sophisticated version of the old Roman viniae fail, as well as tunneling under the walls. The author considers this continued bombardment of the walls "the world's first concerted artillery bombardment." Mehmet's soldiers portaging their fleet overland, since the Golden Horn had been blocked with a boom, was absolutely incredible!! Ancient Greeks had already dragged their ships overland at the diolkos, the Isthmus of Corinth--from Ionian to Aegean Sea or vice versa. As of the present, modern Greece has built a canal.
You have to admire Constantine for refusing to desert his people when he had a chance to escape and for fighting alongside them, although he knew the fight was probably hopeless. Since reading this I have read a fascinating nonfiction biography of Constantine XI:
The Immortal Emperor: The Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans.
Attention is given to the superstition, 'portents' and 'prophecies' of the Byzantines. They interpret as bad omens a partial eclipse, St. Elmo's fire on one of the churches and a thick fog rushing in; they feel that these are signs that God has abandoned them. The author conjectures that an island in the Pacific had blown itself up earlier in the year; the bad weather is fallout. The author calls this the "Krakatoa of the Middle Ages." After the defeat, we read about Mehmet's legacy and of subsequent events. The maps of the area and of Constantinople 1453 were very useful and helped me visualize.
Highly recommended. -
От векове градът на Константин фокусира завоевателните стремежи на араби, латинци и българи, примамени не само от славата му на изумително богато и красиво място, но и от възможността да установят контрол над ключовите морски и сухоземни пътища, които минават оттам.
Когато младият владетел на османските турци Мехмед II събира огромна сухопътна войска и флот, за да обсади Града в началото на 1453 г., реалността в Константиноп��л вече е далеч от славната легенда. След хиляда сто двадесет и три години съществуване, след двадесет и три обсади и няколко земетресения, столицата на Източната римска империя е поувяхнала и пообедняла красавица, чиито жители, подобно на упорити ухажори, са готови на всичко, за да не е я дадат в чужди ръце.
От април до края на май 1453 г. пред стените на Града откъм суша и море се разиграва трагедия с древногръцки мащаби. Атакуващата османска армия е олицетворение на модерната войска от нов тип – дисциплинирана, мобилна и бърза, възприела най-новите постижения на обсадното изкуство и усвоила тънкостите при използването барута и артилерията. За нея и нейният водач Мехмед упоритите стени на Константинопол са не просто поредното военно предизвикателство, а въпрос на религиозна чест и лична обсесия.
Защитниците на Града, предимно ромеи и италианци от Венеция и Генуа, имат да губят много повече от обсаждащите ги османци. Със себеотрицание, което далеч надхвърля физическия им брой и материални възможности, жителите на Града и техният последен владетел – трагично-величавият Константин, успяват да сторят максималното, за да предотвратят неизбежното.
Религиозните поверия, фантазми и суеверия заместват липсващите олимпийски богове в тази средновековна Илиада. И в двата лагера вярата като инструмент за психологическа манипулация играе силна роля, когато Градът като символ сам по себе си се окаже недостатъчна мотивация.
Роджър Кроули разказва за последните дни на Константинопол, доближавайки се максимално до художествения разказ. Признава, че в предмодерната история омешването на факти и легенди създава неразрешими главоблъсканици за съвременния историк. Твърде много са обстоятелствата, истината за които едва ли ще научим някога – например точните причини за смъртта на последния ромейски император. Но версията на събитията, към която Кроули се придържа, не ми беше скучна нито за секунда, в нея има и трагика, и поетика, и романтика. Дълбоко оценявам такива книги.
Обсадата на Константинопол е един от онези вълнуващи гранични моменти в историята, в които знанието за развръзката не пречи ни най-малко на съпреживяването. Безброй са епизодите, в които везните се накланят в полза на обсадените и на читателя му се струва, че още малко усилие или късмет, и съдбата ще се обърне и Градът ще бъде спасен. Но дори когато става ясно, че всичко е загубено, това не е краят за Града. За да съградиш отначало, понякога трябва да приемеш факта на разрухата. Започва нов етап за Константинопол-Истанбул – не по-малко славен и бляскав. Но това, както казват, е друга история. -
"1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West" by Roger Crowley is an interesting and detailed account of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in the year 1453. From this book I learned many things about this momentous event and recommend it to anyone interested in world history. This is the third book of popular history of Crowley's I have read and it did not disappoint.
One caveat: At times Crowley lets both his admiration of the Ottoman Empire and his dislike of Christendom to mar his account with a lack of impartiality. As long as you know about this defect going in you will be fine.
Notes:
Audiobook:
Narrated by: Simon Prebble
Length: 10 hours and 56 minutes
Unabridged Audiobook
Release date: 2016-08-09
Language: English
Publisher: Hachette Audio -
Much of my historical reading often refers to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, but none of it describes the battle itself in any real depth. It seemed to be an important historical turning point as the Middle Ages developed into the Renaissance, and I wanted to learn more about it.
Thanks to Roger Crowley's informative, accessible introduction to the subject, I have a much greater understanding of "the last great siege" not only in terms of its immediate historical context, but also its continuing impact on Muslim/Christian relations (in both religious and political perspectives).
For example, the fall of Constantinople effectively cut off the old trade routes between Europe and Asia - forcing the Europeans to find new routes, thus helping open the door to global exploration, the discovery of the American continent, and so forth.
Crowley could have easily worked in some sort of bias in his narrative, choosing to go soft and politically correct where Islam was concerned or to be overly justifying of the European/Christian perspective. However, he avoids blatantly choosing sides, and to his credit speaks positively and critically of both sides.
I get the feeling that there was much more that contributed to Byzantium's decline and fall than Crowley describes. He seems to brush over the long process of the Eastern Empire's steady loss of territory, its weakening imperial leadership, and other causes of decline. His focus is on Muslim expansion into Europe, the centuries-old obsession with the conquest of Constantinople (which he refers to frequently but does little to explain), and particularly on the role of developing technology (gunpowder and cannons).
He does well in portraying Mehmet (the Ottoman Turk sultan) and Constantine XI (the last "Roman" emperor). Mehmet emerges as an occasionally admirable villain, and Constantine as a tragic hero. So, perhaps Crowley does unwittingly take sides at least in his portrayal of the opposing leaders involved.
I would recommend this book mostly to others interested in various aspects of history. However, I would also recommend it to people interested in learning more about one of history's great turning points that helped shape the modern world.
I doubt any films will be made on this subject, given the current political climate but I do think that screenwriters and filmmakers would do well to begin with this book if they wish to create a great story from history. -
DNF 15%
Огромния интерес, с което си взех книгата, е обратнопропорционален на стойността и откъм исторически детайли. След странния пролог нещата стават безобразно зле. Изплюват се дати и имена без обяснение кой какъв е, откъде е и какво общо има с нашата история. Това тюрки, селджуци, турци, араби - всичко е в казана с пилафа, без да се обяснява нищо за тях, още по-малко какви са разликите и приликите помежду им.
Византийците, доколкото Кроули изобщо ги коментира в детайли, са представени като живи декаденти и даже хлебарите са заети да философстват върху божиите проявления, вместо да си гледат бизнеса. Освен това са и суеверни и приемат превратите и цареубийствата като божия воля за наказание на греховете. И се вайкат за глупости - Никита Хониат, “типично византийски” (цитат) се жалва от западните кръстоносци, опустошили града му, вместо да се бият за вярата в Светите земи. Оставам с впечатление, че Хониат е трябвало да ги похвали. Султаните пък бележат “свръхестествен напредък” (цитат), с такава “лека ръка” (цитат) управляват покореното население, че феодализмът в Европа е крайно порочна практика по сравнение. Освен това са “близо до народа и природата” (пак цитирам). Вероятно тънкият намек е, че византийците не са.
След всичко прочетено дотук, Константинопол просто е обречен да падне и всички причини са ясни от 8-ми век нататък. Даже завладяването му явно е изцяло за добро - с такива славни завоеватели е направо жалко, че не са успели още през 8-ми век при първите си опити. Няма нужда да чета по-нататък и не смятам да го правя.
Излишно е да коментирам колко съм разочарована от Кроули (и от издателството, подбрало това несериозно творение). Хаотични данни в двете изчетени глави, няма анализ или поне детайлизация, твърде крайни, предубедени, порядъчно субективни и схематични трактовки и внушения, които целят да замаскират несвършена работа по изследване и поднасяне на темата. Това дори отдалеч не наподобява историческо изследване. По-скоро сензационен маркетингов продукт за бърза печалба от читатели, за първи път чуващи за обсадата на Константинопол и леко несигурни какво и къде е това, но пък убедени, че звучи яко. -
EXCELLENT! (A Review of the Audiobook)
Unabridged Audio Edition Published in 2016 by Hachette Audio and Blackstone Audio
Read by Simon Prebble
Duration: 10 Hours, 56 Minutes
When Rome was at its height it split itself in half and created a second capital for the eastern half in Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). The eastern half survived the official "Fall of Rome" in 476 AD and continued on for nearly 1,000 more years until it succumbed to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. It was the seat of the Orthodox Christian Church and oftentimes stood as the bulwark against Muslim military advances into Eastern Europe.
From the time of the first formal attack against Constantinople in 674 AD until it finally fell in 1453, the capture of this city was, at the least, on every Muslim leader in this region's "to do" list, if not an active goal.
Once the Ottoman Turks arrive on the scene the Byzantine Empire is clearly on its last legs. The city is still defended by one of the most elaborate set of walls ever built and its history and architecture are truly amazing. But, its glory days are long gone. The city has sold a lot of its treasures to defend itself. Its territorial holdings, at one point, included a majority of the territory of the Roman Empire. By 14523 it only held a part of modern Greece and the territory immediately around the walled city.
The Ottomans, in contrast, were an Empire on the rise and they understood that the capture of Constantinople offered great strategic, economic and symbolic value.
This is a book that could have truly been horrible. We've all had that professor or teacher or book that takes the most exciting parts of history and drains all of the joy from the learning experience and leaves behind a dry, lifeless exercise in tedium.
This book had all of the hallmarks of that experience.
1. Medieval battle? Check.
2. The Byzantine Empire, whose very name is literally synonymous in English with being unnecessarily complicated? Check.
3. Multiple religious traditions that most American readers know little about? Check (Islam) and check (Orthodox Christianity).
However, Roger Crowley's history is almost always highly entertaining and informative. He paints vivid word pictures of the battles and they come off much more like the epic struggles depicted in a Tolkien novel than the a dry recitation of facts. He introduces new historical figures and makes them feel like real people.
Constantine XI, the Byzantine Emperor comes to life as an ...
Read more at:
http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2017/... -
This book was very enjoyable, narrative, and engaging effort to explain what is perhaps one of the most facinating and famous clashes of all time. The author took efforts to make the reader understand not only the personalities of the conflict, but the atmosphere and environs in which the events took place. The result is a clear and consise history, with every effort made to remain unbaised and retain historical details, without completely sacrificing the story itself. It is certainly not a boring play-by-play of the seige.
If you are not generally familiar with the Ottomans or the Byzantine Empire, you might want to read a few online sources before reading this book.
My only complaint was that, in an effort to make the text readable for the average person and more narrative in general, the author does not cite sources, but includes a chapter on original sources at the end. -
Краят на една империя, началото на следващата:
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/1...
Кроули започва своята история с предишните мюсюлмански обсади на града, които “оставят богато наследство от мюсюлмански митове и фолклорни сюжети, които се предават от поколение на поколение през следващите векове”. “Византия е не само последната наследница на Римската империя, тя е също така първата християнска държава”, пише той, и пространно описва как нейната столица е съградена да отразява триумфа на монотеистичната религия в прослава на Исус. Това обаче върви ръка за ръка не просто с фанатична религиозност, но и с придружаващо суеверие и фатализъм, които са особено обострени в последните мигове на някога могъщата държава.
Издателство "Изток-Запад"
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/1... -
This book more-or-less delivers what it promises: an account of the siege and fall of Constantinople in 1453. Due to the limits of historical record it is understandably told primarily from a few sources (mainly those of the defenders) a shortcoming the author acknowledges. Its a fine book for what its worth, written in clear prose. As all reviews are somewhat subjective I must confess that I found it to be lacking in some way....perhaps in "urgency." Nonetheless, its an important book for history lovers as well as those who love Istanbul.
-
good account, fast and gripping; entertaining enough (and offering a good mixture of familiar and new)
-
Kezdjük azzal, hogy Crowley még mindig eszméletlenül jól ír, az angolszász epikus történettudomány zászlóshajója ő, aki ráadásul hiányszakmában dolgozik: a XV-XVI. századi Mediterráneum a szakterülete. Szeressük őt, olvassuk őt. Fél csillag levonást azért kap, hogy érzékeltessem, azért az előző könyve mégis jobban tetszett, de ennek oka pusztán dramaturgiai - azon túl, hogy nem azok nyertek, akinek drukkoltam. Amíg ugyanis a Tengeri birodalmak-ban nagyhatalmak feszültek egymásnak, így a végkimenetel kétesélyes volt, addig Konstantinápoly ostroma, valljuk meg, lefutott meccs. Hisz mire is mehetett volna a hatalmas Bizáncból hagyott utolsó falatka a korszak legszervezettebb, legmotiváltabb hadseregével, az oszmánnal, mégpedig úgy, hogy azok immár minden oldalról körbevették őt? Ráadásul a nyugati kereszténység ebben a periódusban nem mindig tudta eldönteni, hogy kiket utál jobban, az ortodoxokat vagy a muzulmánokat, így segítségnyújtásuk tényleg csak a szép halálra volt elég. Ahogy az (ismét remek) utószó is kiemeli, Konstantinápoly bukása inkább szimbolikus esemény volt, mint történelmi sarokpont – a város létezése addig sem zavarta a törököket abban, hogy tőle több száz kilométerre nyugatra hadakozzanak a magyarokkal. Nem az volt a kérdés, hogy elfoglalják-e, hanem hogy mikor – az akadályok pedig nem is annyira a védők és védőfalak potenciájából fakadtak, hanem a logisztikai jellegű problémákból: hogy az ostromlóknak sikerül-e megfelelő mennyiségű táplálékot biztosítani a seregnek, hogy ne kelljen egymást megenniük, illetve megfelelő higiéniai körülményeket teremteni, hogy ne egye meg őket valami járvány.
Mindettől eltekintve Crowley a maga intenzív stílusában ismét mindent megtesz, hogy súlyt adjon az eseményeknek. Könyve betekintést nyújt az oszmán hadigépezet működésébe éppúgy, mint a várostromok strukturális átalakulásába – ekkortájt tudtak ugyanis az ágyúk olyan fegyverré válni, hogy valóra válthatták Kőműves Kelemen minden rémálmát*. Szóval bővelkedik e kötet számos elemben, ami miatt érdemes kézbe venni, ha valaki a huszadik századnál messzebbre akar kitekinteni a történelemben.
* És ebben is egy magyar mester járt az élen, jegyezzük meg – ő öntötte a legbrutálisabb ágyúkat a próféta seregének. Ha ő nem lett volna, nehezebben boldogult volna az ébredő kelet a haldokló nyugattal. De nem merem leírni a nevét, mert elveszik a kutatóhálózataimat. -
The Good: Detailed narrative account of the Battle of Constantinople. The author reconstructs the day-to-day machinations of the armies and the shifts in mood and morale of the Ottomans and Byzantines very well. The best parts are the opening chapters that describe the declining Byzantine power and the rising Ottoman power, as well as the technology that was responsible in creating giant brass cannons that would be crucial for breaking the famed walls of the city.
The Bad: Beyond the two central personalities of Mehmet II and Constantine XI, the author leaves something to be desired about who other figures as Zaganos Pasha were and their information, beyond simple biographic details is not mentioned. I would have liked to learn what people around Mehmet were thinking or doing. The army is portrayed as one giant mass of soldiers whereas it would have been a mixture of different motivations and psychologies.
The Ugly: The author is subtlety sympathetic to and biased in favor of the Byzantine defenders. This is not bad in and of itself , however, his bias mars the last few chapters starting from the beginning of the final charge into the city. When describing the sack of the City and the rout of the defenders, the author exclusively relies on exaggerated Greek and Venetian accounts, which were no doubt produced to induce angry sentiment at the time in face of the loss of a hugely symbolic Christian capital. That the author couldn't even be bothered to reconcile the accounts of the Ottoman historians (even if they were later written) to the bloodbath portrayed by the Christian ones shows how the author, as a historic writer, is not concerned with finding what probably happened. He rather equates the 1453 battle on the same level of destruction and cruelty as the earlier "sacks" of the city which is laughable considering Mehmet II gave the promise of security to the Christians living in the city who didn't bear arms against him.
All in all, it's a good book for the first half. The second half is dragged down by incredible bias and incompetence by the author. -
Saya enggan memberikan bintang kepada buku ini, kerana tidak pasti perasaan saya terhadapnya. Walaupun mendapat pujian tinggi melangit, walaupun disebut-sebut sebagai buku pilhan USA Today dan San Fransisco Chronicle, itu semua kerana mereka anti-Islam.
Pada peringkat awal dan pertengahan, buku ini seolah-olah ditulis dengan sudut pandangan yang seimbang - kononnya tidak terlalu bersifat orientalis, mahupun pro Al-Fatih. Namun setelah diteliti - ditimbang dan diukur dari kaca mata saya sebagai seorang muslim, sungguh, penulisnya, Roger Crowley, bias dan tidak menyemak betul-betul kesahihan fakta yang disumbatkan ke dalam bukunya, yang melukiskan imej negatif dan berbaur fitnah untuk Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih.
Contoh:
1. Seperti biasa, asalkan ada pemimpin Islam yang ulung memimpin kerajaan Islam yang gemilang, pemimpinnya akan dilabel kaki perempuan, ataupun gay. Dalam buku ini di halaman 54, Al-Fatih dikatakan seorang biseksual.
2. Sultan Muhammad II ini dikatakan percaya tahyul dan sangat dipengaruhi ahli nujum.
Sebuah kota yang kekebalannya tidak dapat diruntuhkan sehingga beberapa kurun, akhirnya dijatuhkan oleh seorang sultan yang salih, yang tidak pernah tinggal solat tahajjud sejak akil baligh, yang sering merujuk kepada gurunya yang ternyata orang alim lagi warak, dibayangkan oleh Rasulullah S.A.W. "sebaik-baik sultan", dikatakan percayakan perkara tahyul?! Duh.
3. Pasukan Janissari yang diceritakan oleh Crowley, terdiri daripada tentera upahan yang sama ada masih menganut Kristian ataupun memeluk agama Islam secara paksa - satu gambaran negatif untuk tentera yang disebutkan oleh Rasulullah S.A.W. "sebaik-baik tentera".
Malah tidak cukup dengan fitnah ini, enggan memperakui kehebatan strategi peperangan Al-Fatih, Crowley meneruskan cerita karutnya dengan menyatakan setelah Mehmet II kehabisan tenaga tentera, pasukan tentera pengawal khasnya, pasukan Janissari, dihantar sebagai usaha terakhir membantai tentera pihak bertahan yang masih bersisa di Constantinople.
Point penting yang perlu diingat di sini ialah, Al-Fatih membentuk strategi serangan 3 lapisan tentera. Pasukan infantri yang berada di barisan pertama bertujuan memberi asakan untuk mengurangkan kekuatan pertahanan Constantine. Barisan kedua yang lebih hebat daripada barisan pertama adalah untuk meneruskan serangan barisan pertama tadi, dengan kerosakan yang lebih besar terhadap kubu pertahanan musuh. Yang terakhir dan yang terhandal, sudah tentulah untuk melumpuhkan secara total pertahanan kota kebal itu, lantas menaklukinya. Taktik ini samalah macam kita bermain catur. Duh.
Tak cukup dengan cemuhan ini, Crowley membayangkan kekejaman tentera Islam: memperkosa wanita, membunuh bayi, dan berebut harta rampasan perang sesama mereka. Hello, that spells exactly like your Crusades, and the Serbs in their ethnic-cleansing mission, stupid.
Kesimpulannya, sentiasalah imbangi bahan bacaan kita apabila membaca sejarah Islam: yang pro Islam dan diambil daripada sumber sahih dan primer, dan pandangan orientalis yang nampaknya selesa dan berasa cukup dengan rujukan bahan sekunder. -
190212改為kobo繁體版
--
跟上一本新書同為英國史家所寫的"1453：君士坦丁堡之戰"比不太出差異
同樣文筆流暢
翻譯也翻得挺好
西歐只是嘴巴上擔心東羅馬完蛋
等到東羅馬真的完蛋，那就完蛋了吧
不然還能怎樣呢??
東西教會之爭在當時應該就像今天的統獨一樣吧
大義不可廢，在土耳其進攻之前
先談談東正教融入羅馬公教如何? -
從東西教會結的樑子、各國事前事後的反應、雙方事前準備、拜占庭式邏輯、城防、武器到戰術等很順的講到結尾
算是相當易讀的書
當然如過事前知道附近地名的話，讀起來會更輕鬆
我原先知道這是大炮發威的一場戰役，且攻下的時間相當短(相較於圍城)
就以為土耳其打的挺輕鬆
原來是打到再不攻下來就要被逼退的程度了
--
以簡轉繁的書籍之中，本書處理的接近完美
留意到的破綻是「借此」，讓我起疑心去查了一下譯者國籍
雖然字義上好像不算錯但台灣習慣上是用「藉此」
--
如果有機會去土耳其
好想參觀聖索菲亞大教堂以及附近例如蘇萊曼清真寺的大型清真寺啊 -
1453：君士坦丁堡的陷落-羅傑‧克勞利。君士坦丁堡是伊斯蘭教和基督教的漫長鬥爭中的最前線。在這裡，不同的宗教信仰在戰爭與和平中對抗了八百年。一四五三年的春天，兩��一神教將在這歷史性的時刻，在君士坦丁堡，產生激烈的碰撞。-摘自序章:紅蘋果。
--------------------------------------
中文的標題雖然有種史詩的激昂，但多少背離了作者的原意...羅傑‧克勞利在伊斯蘭教與基督教雙方的文獻中盡可能的維持中立，所以其實原文的標題應該是接近序章的結尾:<1453:君士坦丁堡的聖戰 與西方和伊斯蘭的碰撞> (1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West)。但畢竟台灣跟基督教/西方國家比較親近，所以會心理上會偏向是君士坦丁堡的'陷落'而非'佔領'吧。
羅傑‧克勞利用了厚厚一整本來描寫這場大約兩個月的戰爭的背景、過程和結局。鄂圖曼帝國能打敗拜占庭帝國的原因，大致可以歸納為兩個：一是激進的教義、二是專制的效率。由於伊斯蘭教鼓勵聖戰與殉教，而且立法允許勝者劫掠，使得士兵在戰場上��本是爭先恐後地衝向敵人。至於專制的部分，雖然西方也是皇帝極權，但基督教內部的鬥爭拖慢了救援和進攻的腳步，使得最終拜占庭帝國在孤立無援且人數壓倒性弱勢的情況下滅亡了。相比之下鄂圖曼帝國的穆罕默德二世，在軍隊運用上擁有絕對的權力，且恩威並施的手段也有效的振奮軍心。
在閱讀的當下，我無可避免的聯想到台灣海峽的對岸。此時正逢大選結束、兩岸衝突激化，武漢的肺炎莫名其妙的跳出來參一腳。為了防疫，中國無預警的在1月23日上午10點將武漢封城，這種說一不二的手段，應該也只有專制政府能夠做得到吧。在效率上，專制絕對是遠高於有如多頭馬車的民主，畢竟民主需要一次又一次收斂（多數決）才能往前走。所以在針鋒相對的時刻，似乎還是專制佔有優勢的，這讓人對未來多少有點悲觀啊。
好像離題了。回到君士坦丁堡，無論是十字軍東征還是1453年圍城，都是基於利益發起的，但都被冠上聖戰的名號－－也就是用宗教來做包裝。說來真是諷刺，人類之所以有宗教是為了撫慰心靈，但千年下來宗教總是一再重新被解讀、甚至曲解來包裝戰爭、鞏固權力，造成聖戰士兵心理上充實與肉體的毀滅。包裝的再華美，戰爭也不外乎是搶錢搶糧搶女人的概念，但回過頭來宗教到底是福是禍、還是無辜的受害方，還真讓人益發困惑了。
地中海史詩三部曲就這麼完結，庚子鼠年的大年初一也在感嘆中度過了。紙本書雖然很精緻，但握在手上真的好重啊，下一本
征服者：葡萄牙帝國的崛起我要買電子版...... -
Ако не бяха двете слабости, които ще изложа по-долу, бих дал на книгата три звезди. Какво ме накара обаче да дам само една:
1. Една неприятна тенденция, която наблюдавам през последните години. Не знам дали така се случва, че попадам само на такива книги, но масово в историческите съчинения на автори от Западна Европа, които са посветени на теми от историята на Източна Европа и по-конкретно Балканите, виждам една, меко казано, смущаваща незапознатост с историята на българите и тяхното участие като фактор в разглежданите събития. Обикновено или изобщо не се споменава нищо за нас, или ако все пак ни е отделено някакво място, то е със стойността на бележка под линия или едно изречение в основния текст, чието внушение е за незначителността ни. Конкретен пример от настоящата книга - авторът има добрата идея да ни запознае с предходните мюсюлмански обсади на Константинопол. Разбира се, отделено е внимание на най-значимата от тях до 1453 г. - тази от 717/718 година. Участието на българите в нея и помощта им срещу арабите в текста е сведено до едно изречение на страница 24, според което: "по същото време Лъв, чиято решителност и лукавство изглеждат неизчерпаеми, започва преговори с българите езичници и успява да ги убеди да нападнат "неверниците" пред стените на Града." Доста скромно описание на участието във войната на съюзническа армия, от която, по думи на самите араби, обсаждащите са се страхували повече, отколкото от ромеите зад стените на града. Интересно ми е каква е причината за това отношение - дали е просто липса на задълбочени познания, което е лошо или е пренебрежение, което е още по-лошо. Незав��симо какъв е отговорът, няма как да оценя виско труд, който има такъв сериозен недостатък.
2. Липсата на анализ на събитията и фактите. Авторът е сглобил разказ за случилото се през пролетта на 1453 г., но не отива по-далеч. Описват се фактологически отделните етапи на обсадата и важните събития от нея, но нищо повече. Няма разсъждения, няма анализ, няма представяне на собствена гледна точка за случилото се. -
next spring's honor's trip is to istanbul, and i asked a turkish friend of mine what would be a good read to prep. he suggested this book. scholars generally mark the end of middle ages and byzantium by the fall of constantinople in, d'oh! 1453 by mehmet II.
geek food? i s'pose, but it's beautifully written: "driven by the word of god and divine conquest, the people of the desert constructed navies 'to wage holy war by sea'..."
and it's delightfully full of hmmmm tidbits. greek fire, for instance, was probably a form of crude oil with powdered wood resins in it to make it stick to whatever it was sprayed on, such as the side of a ship, a human being or the surface of the water itself. for another, the initial islamic attempt to take constantinople marked the first time arabs crossed into mainland europe. and the ottomans never called themselves "turks", which was an insult, and "turkey" didn't exist before 1923. the ottoman empire was culturally diverse; crowley sites slavs, bulgarians, greeks, serbs, macedonians, italians, and even a scotsman as some of the movers and shakers.
all this and i'm on page 13! -
Roger Crowley writes some of the absolute best narrative history, and Simon Prebble is Simon Prebble.
The 1453 fall of Constantinople is a fascinating topic surrounded in myth and mystery, with heroes like Giovanni Giustiniani and Constantine Dragases leaping from the page as if they're fictional, and the 21-year-old Mehmet Fatih an enigmatic and commanding (if occasionally childish and ill-tempered) figure.
Totally worth the read/listen if you're even remotely interested. -
1453 covers a contentious moment in the history of the struggle between East and West. There was a lot of potential for partisan campaigning, character-slander and historical sleight-of-hand. Crowley neatly avoids these pitfalls, presenting a balanced, sympathetic portrait of the characters and the world, all while maintaining a dramatic voice befiting a fiction novelist. Gripping and educating.
-
You are there at the last Mass in Hagia Sophia as close to 2000 years of empire comes to an end, as well as what we call the Middle Ages.
-
« L’histoire, plus des rois, plus des guerres.
- Jean Paul Belmondo
I know that history is much more than wars and kings, but this particular battle was such an iconic moment for that entire era that it was good to get the play-by-play. Spoiler Alert: The Ottomans storm the castle and kill or enslave everyone inside, just in case you hadn’t heard. Because up until the final pages of this exciting story, you think the defenders may have a chance.
This is my third or fourth history by Roger Crowley. The man can write. I plan to read every word he’s ever written. This story was a slam dunk because it is just a thrilling tale from start to finish, and by finish I mean the annihilation of the Roman Empire, or at least its Eastern branch.
As a life-long atheist, I didn’t really have a dog in this fight, although you really have to go with the defenders, just folks living their lives and trying to get by. The Ottomans had no claim to this city, none whatsoever. So much for Islam being the religion of peace. I really wish people would stop saying that. The entire Islamic Empire was forged by the sword, so I don’t understand the peaceful bit.
All religions are bad, but some are certainly worse than others. Crowley barely mentions the religious aspect to this war, in spite of the title. I’m sure he’s been accused of Islamophobia simply on the basis of the title.
I’ve read reviews calling this history both boring and to popular in appeal to be serious. Bullshit. It was a fucking blast to read, like the best sort of action adventure that also shored up a few major holes in my understanding of history. I could never ask more of a book. -
It takes a talented writer to make a historical account seem suspenseful. Gosh knows, plenty try. But history is suspenseful. In the middle of the action, the participants don't know how it will turn out. But the writer does. So it's the talent of the writer that allows the actions to take place without providing the end result.
Roger Crowley does just that. And dang is it fun to read.
This book tells the story of the fall of Constantinople--perhaps one of the most compelling stories of the fall of a city. It marked the end not just to the city, but also the remnants of the Roman Empire, which by this time was mostly a myth. What makes this story so enthralling is the symphony of promises that Europe made to help, but never made good on, and then they wrung their hands in disbelief as the city walls were finally breached.
But the story is not in how the walls came down, but how 8,000 fighters held out against a force more than 15x stronger. It's nothing short of amazing.
Crowley describes the fighting and the behind-the-scenes action in a way that brings the efforts on both side to vibrant life. I found myself crossing fingers as last ditch efforts were made--even though I was well aware how the story ends. I wanted to find out how it turned out, even though I knew. And Crowley did all this without resorting to making up conversations or creating a fictionalized account.
This is an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in history, Istanbul, or reading in general. -
Read my full review at my site White Tower Musings:
https://jsjammersmith.wordpress.com/2...
When the reader is able to read about the siege of Constantinople and find some manner of sympathy, or at least understanding, with both sides of the conflict, then I believe it's fair to say the writer has accomplished something.
1453 was an amazing read because every page of this book was brimming with animated prose that made the real facts of the Ottoman and Byzantine conflict seem like more than just a retelling of facts. This was a true and functioning narrative that explained the significance of a largely medieval conflict. 1453 isn't just about an Ottoman conquest of a Byzantine defeat, it's about the last bastion of the classical world falling beneath the might of rising industry, and the shifting of influence of religion in the Middle East as Islam became more than just a political movement. Roger Crowley writes a story in which every facet of this long siege and eventual slaughter was something more.
Reading this book I felt like I was reading an incredible story with real implications for a contemporary reader and that's what great history should be. Crowley has achieved something incredible with this book, and as I contemplate the blood soaked into the stones of the ruins of the Hippodrome, or Orman's mighty gun shaking the earth beneath the earth, I'm left marveled at a story I knew already and the way in which it's been forever altered.
