From Istanbul through Constantinople

From Istanbul through Constantinople

Introduction

Shakespeare’s famous lines in his ‘As You Like It’ ring, ‘All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely Players’. Considering life on Earth as the longest drama ever staged and the people of Earth as actors, my mind yearns to witness the Fall of Constantinople, set in the 15th century. Psychology tells us that human life is extremely engrossing when partaken in, but ends up being ironic when examined from the outside. The Fall of Constantinople illustrates this fact like very few incidents do.

Context

Many accounts are recalled of the Fall of Constantinople, but the event is essentially is thus - Turkish armies led by the Sultan, Mehmed II laid siege on the city of Constantinople and after a protracted battle managed to conquer it. The context however is much deeper.

Firstly, Constantinople is eponymous with its founder - the Roman emperor Constantine the Great; Constantine won the throne of Rome after a long interregnum and as emperor, he legalized Christianity, which would go on to become the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was a major change as Christian moral values differed widely from Roman ones. Further, the Romans were the ones who crucified Christ. Secondly, the Turkish race were followers of the Islamic faith, empires subscribing to which had accrued large swathes of land, in the previous centuries. Constantinople turned out a theatre in the tension between Islam and Christianity. Finally, the city of Constantinople stands between Asia and Europe - it heralded cultural transition and was a nodal center for trade.

One can argue that many conflicts in history have such background; however, in my reading, the Fall of Constantinople is unique, because it appeals to pathos - the sense of emotion - in a direct and unbridled manner. In the colloquial reading, history, being a product of the victor, rarely empathizes with the loser. Notwithstanding the validity of this statement, we are fortunate that we are able to empathize with many sides in the conflict.

A personal perspective

One cannot but feel for the Emperor of Constantinople, Constantine XI Palaiologos. His empire, although drawing from Rome’s secular and Christian heritage, resembles them only in semantics and tapestry. His kingdom encompasses only the city of Constantinople and a few surrounding villages; and its military and economic might is a pale shadow of the past. Further, he is at the mercy of the Western European kingdoms, depending on them for military support. But he cannot depend on them at wholesale rate. Indeed, it was the armies of Western Europe that invaded Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade out of a need to replenish coffers. The Schism of the Church in 1054, where the Latin Church of the Vatican and the Greek Church of Constantinople found themselves going their own ways, drove a permanent wedge between them. But still, the weight of Rome lies upon his shoulders. The Western half of the Partitioned Roman empire fell to Barbarian invaders in 476 AD. His Tiny kingdom, if it can be called that, is all that is left of the Eastern half, at this point practically all of Rome! But it is this fact exactly that makes his defeat a worthy goal for the Armies of Mehmed.

It is this interplay of legacies and viewpoints that makes the Fall of Constantinople such an interesting situation to possibly witness. Byzantium, a Greek fishing port formed the basis for what would become Constantinople. And Rome itself derived much from the Hellenistic Culture. Constantine XI thus carries the weight of Greece – and its philosophy, culture and art - as well. Personally, he is the literal successor to Marcus Aurelius and Julius Caesar, and perhaps even Alexander before them. In the speeches he delivers during the course of the City’s Fall he appeals to all these aspects of its heritage. Indeed, one empathizes with the man who didn’t want to be the one who ended it all. 

Alternate perspectives

Mention must be made that the Pope, at the Vatican, responding to the calls for aid, did indeed assemble a fleet to defend the city. Indeed, Western Europe realized the gravity of the conflict and decided to respond on their own terms. The elite of Europe had reason to respond as they did - to them the battle heralded a geo-political and cultural challenge.

It is equally rewarding to imagine oneself in the place of Mehmed II, the invading Sultan. Along the aegis of the Prophet Mohammed and his message, he leads an army to lay siege to a city that has protected itself over and over again. Facing criticism from his own court and the threat of a united Christian army, Mehmed still prevails. He does so, fighting in the forefront, playing active roles in negotiation and planning. To his credit, Constantine XI bravely lead his army in the final moments of its defeat. While many are fleeing the city, fearing the ravages of the offending army, Constantine appeals to the sense of cultural responsibility that the Greeks, Italians and other Christian groups have to uphold and the legacy of Rome.

Analysis

In an age where the value of leading a culturally relevant life is increasingly falling into question, these men illustrate the epitome of cultural awareness and responsibility. These flushes of emotion are precisely why I would like to witness the Battle of Constantinople. They put into examination, one’s own life and make one examine what is really important.

But this is not to say that all cultural identity is good. That one is on the side of God and country has also been be of the most dangerous thoughts in history. To the ‘everyday man or woman’, in the city of Constantinople or to the men in the invading armies, are doctrines religions just diktats from men of power to control the masses. One wonders about the truth in the Marxist proclamation of religion being the opium of the masses. But what of God? Would the true God, compassionate and merciful demand such conflict? Perhaps my desire to visit the Fall of Constantinople reflects my desire to answer these questions.

But perhaps we needn’t be gloomy. One scholarly opinion is that Constantinople never fell. Indeed, the Turks energized a dying city – one that had lost its ancient grandeur. Rechristening it Istanbul, they converted the city into a hub of art, trade and culture. The fleeing Christian population, carried with them important Greek manuscripts, manuscripts that helped drive the Renaissances in Europe. Greek Christianity itself found a new following in the Russian populace. Thus, I believe that the Fall of Constantinople best expresses an old maxim – art and culture are divine instruments and although they wax and wane, this is only a temporal manifestation of the divine play, one I hope to bask in.