Global Intifada

            Unsurprisingly, Spencer has left out a lot of information regarding the fall of Constantinople which results in an absolutely skewed picture of the underlying causes of its collapse. The biggest omission is that its entirely question whether Constantinople was a Byzantine city to begin with – after all, the city itself was built upon the Greek city of Byzantium which was conquered by the Romans in 196AD. Constantine I refounded the city as Nova Roma in 330 AD and was eventually renamed “Constantinople” to honor him. Besides leaving out the obvious, Spencer also fails to mention that the Byzantine Empire itself had its fair share of belligerence towards the Muslim world. For one thing, he leaves out the fact that the Emperor Constantine sent out galleys before the Ottoman siege even began in order to raid the Ottoman coastal villages on the Sea of Marmara for villagers who were then sold in the city as slaves. (p 76 “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) Such actions are hardly those of a peace-loving state. Complaining about Ottomans capturing Constantinople and selling its inhabitants into slavery cannot be taken seriously when the Byzantines were doing exactly the same thing. Spencer may try to argue that the Byzantine Empire wasn’t following “Orthodox” Christian teaching, but this isn’t supported by the facts since Pope Nicholas V authorized the enslavement of Muslims and Pagans in the papal bull, Dum Diversas, in 1452 – one year before the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. The fact that the Byzantines were raiding Ottoman territory also illustrates that the inhabitants of the area were Muslim – after all, why would a Christian state capture and enslave its fellow oppressed and enslaved Christians? Demographic research reveals that by 1520-30 only about 19 percent of the Balkan population was Muslim while 81 percent was Christian with a tiny Jewish minority while the Anatolian population was approximately 90% Muslim. (p 251-252 of “A History of Islamic Societies” by Ira Lapidus)  By 1500, half the city’s population was still made up of Christians. (p 179 of “Sea of Faith: Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean World” by Stephen O’Shea). This is hardly the slaughter and conversion of an entire population that Spencer attempts to intimate. If the majority of the population of the Byzantine Empire wasn’t displaced, then the argument of a right of return is patently absurd. Assuming for the sake of the argument that the entire population was converted, albeit the empirical evidence strongly indicates otherwise, they would have no right to return if they didn’t leave the area. If Spencer wanted to make an argument that the Ottoman/Turkish actions in the 19^th and 20^th century against the Greek population entitled them to a right of return, he might have a stronger claim, but not with regards to Constantinople. These demographics undercut the argument that the Byzantines were engaging in a defensive war against Ottoman aggression and forced conversion. Spencer has argued that the Christian response to Islam was largely defensive and this argument will be dealt with more thoroughly in the third section.  The purpose here is not to bash Christianity or apologize for Muslim aggressiveness, rather, it is to provide a more holistic historical perspective that has been distorted by sensationalism and current political events.

            More important than leaving out such information is the fact that Spencer completely fails to mention the first conquest of Constantinople in 1204 – which wasn’t done by the big, bad Muslims – but the Latin Christians in the Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade got entirely diverted from attacking Muslim lands into a full scale invasion and conquest of Constantinople, which was ruthlessly sacked for three days, unlike the Ottoman conquest which was only for one day. While Spencer mentions the lamentable destruction of the city by the Ottomans, he fails to even mention similar actions by the Crusaders who stole or destroyed Roman and Greek artifacts, burned down the Library of Constantinople, and violated the city’s holy places.

            “The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church’s holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.” (p 152 of “Byzantium and Europe” by Speros Vryonis)

A further description of the conquest of 1204 states: “An appalling massacre ensued and huge portions of the city were destroyed by fire: “more houses were burned than there are to be found in the three great cities of the Kingdom of France,” declared the French knight Geoffrey de Villehardouin. The city’s great heritage of art was vandalized and St. Sophia profaned and ransacked: “they brought horses and mules into the Church,” wrote the chronicler Nicetas, “the better to carry off the holy vessels and the engraved silver and gold that they had torn from the throne and the pulpits, and the doors, and the furniture wherever it was to be found; and when some of these beasts slipped and fell, they ran them through with their swords, fouling the Church with their blood and ordure.” The Venetians made off with a great trove of statuary, relics, and precious objects to adorn their own church of St. Mark, including the four bronze horses that had stood in the Hippodrome since the time of Constantine the Great. Constantinople was left a smoking ruin.” (p 28 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley)

If Spencer is going to condemn the brutality of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, he should also condemn the Latin conquest. After all, the Latin conquest of the city resulted in more long-term damage of the city than anything the Ottomans did. Specifically, the Latin conquest contributed to the decline of Constantinople in three ways: (1) it created the conditions of Turkish intervention, (2) it resulted in the commercial decimation of the city, and (3) resulted in a massive population migration.

The Turks Drawn Into the Power Vacuum Created by the 1204 Conquest

            The conquest of Constantinople in 1204 created a vacuum of power that was filled in by competing states governed by Italians, Franks, and Greeks. It was these anarchic conditions that ultimately drew in the Turks. In fact, the first time the Muslim Turks crossed the Dardanelles in the 1350s was at the invitation of emperor John Cantacuzenos to assist in the civil wars between the successor states. It was the first time that Muslims had set foot in Europe since 717. (p 31 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) The Turkish presence in Byzantine military forces was prevalent enough that the Byzantines allowed the construction of a mosque in the city to cater to their religious needs. (p 27 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) The construction of a single mosque in a Christian city might not seem like a big deal, but during the time it was a source of extreme controversy. When the doge of cosmopolitan Venice proposed constructing a mosque in the city to accommodate Muslim merchants that were instrumental in its control of the spice trade, the city fell into civil anarchy and rioting. (p 277-278 of “Sea of Faith: Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean World” by Stephen O’Shea) Thus, the construction of a mosque in the heart of a Christian state was a big deal, which illustrates how desperate the Byzantines were for military assistance insofar as they would go so far as to hire Muslim Turks to fight in their wars against the other successor states that formed as a result of the Latin Conquest in 1204.

The Commercial Decline Following the 1204 Conquest

            The more direct way in which the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 contributed to the conquest of 1584 was the loss of economic vitality of the city. It is estimated that approximately 900,000 silver marks were looted from the city – about 200,000 of which ended up in Venetian hands. The sacking of the city created a shortage of funds which had grave consequences for the future of the city. For example, Emperor Andronikos decided to abolish imperial navy in 1284 resulting in the unemployed sailors to defect to the Ottomans to build their own fleet. A strong Byzantine navy would have definitely assisted in preventing the blockade the Ottomans were able to impose on Constantinople and enabled reinforcements to come in from other areas of Europe. (p 33 “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) A better example of the dire financial conditions the Byzantines were in would be how Orban, a Hungarian cannon founder, offered the Byzantine Emperor his services in constructing single-piece bronze guns in 1452. The Emperor accepted his services but was only able to pay him a tiny stipend which was not even paid regularly. As a result, Orban left Constantinople and went to the Ottoman city of Edirne and was immediately hired by Sultan Mehmet. (p 90-91 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) Orban’s cannons were instrumental in the destruction of the mighty walls of Constantinople which prevented foreign incursions into the city for centuries. Without Orban’s cannons, the Ottomans would have never been able to take Constantinople and without the sacking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, such a historical incident would have probably never arose in the first place.

Depopulation of Constantinople Following the 1204 Conquest

            Perhaps the strongest area in which Spencer’s argument collapses is the depopulation of the city subsequent to the 1204 conquest. “For nearly sixty years the city became the “Latin Empire of Constantinople,” ruled by the count of Flanders and his successors. The Byzantine empire was dismembered into a scattered collection of Frankish states and Italian colonies, while a large part of the population fled to Greece. The Byzantines established a kingdom in exile at Nicaea in Anatolia and were relatively successful in barring further Turkish incursions. When they recaptured Constantinople in 1261, they found the city’s infrastructure close to ruin and its dominions shrunk to a few dispersed fragments.” (p 28 “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) On the eve of the 1584 conquest, the population of the city had shrunk to somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 (p 34). While it is undoubtedly true that the city suffered from the Black Death, so did the Turks and Italians. In fact, the Italians were hit the hardest out of any population in Europe, yet they provided a greater proportion of troops in the defense of the city after the Greeks.

            The depopulation of the city may be the strongest explanation for why such few forces were mustered in its defense. Estimates of the city’s defense range from 7,000 to 8,000 total men of which only 4,773 were actual Greeks while estimates of the Ottoman forces ranged from 100,000 to 200,000 (a strong minority of whom were non-Muslim). (p 103 of “Sea of Faith: Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean World” by Stephen O’Shea) In other words, a little less then half of the city’s defenses were provided by foreigners. To contrast against these few number of soldiers defending the city during the Ottoman siege, consider that Constantinople housed a garrison of 30,000 men during the Fourth Crusade. (p 159 of “The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople” by Jonathan Phillips)

The fact that so many foreigners were present in the city may at first seem like an illustration of Orthodox and Latin unity, but in reality, it was far from it. Relations between the Latin West and the Orthodox East in Constantinople had collapsed beyond repair, even during the defense of the city. When Byzantine Emperors attempted to get aid from Catholics, such as the touring of Italy and Hungry in the 1420s by Emperor John VIII, they were advised to push for the unification of the Orthodox Church with the Church of Rome. (p 67 “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) The Byzantine emperors finally conceded to such demands and the two Churches grudgingly reconciled at the Council of Florentine in June of 1439. The response in Constantinople to the Council of Florentine was overwhliming negative.  “Back in the city the Orthodox faithful greeted the returning delegation with hostility; many of those who signed immediately revoked their signatures. The Eastern patriarchs refused to accept the decision of their delegates; the next patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory Mammas, who supported the union, was widely unpopular, and it became impossible to celebrate the union in St. Sophia. The issue split the city in two: Constantine and most of his immediate circle of nobles, officers, and civil servants supported the union; only a fraction of the clergy and people did – they believed that union had been forced on them by the treacherous Franks and that their immortal souls had been imperiled for base and materialistic motives. The people were profoundly antipapist: they were accustomed to equate the pope with the antichrist, “the wolf, the destroyer”; “Rum Papa,” the Roman Pope, was a popular choice of name for city dogs. The citizens formed a volatile proletariat: impoverished, superstitious, easily swayed to riot and disorder.” (p 68 (p 28 “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) The situation became so intense that the Emperor Constantine was not formally crowned, which should have been done in Sophia, but the coronation of a unionist emperor by a unionist patriarch would probably have led to massive public outcry (p 68-69 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley)

Even during the siege of Constantinople, the Orthodox Greeks bickered and fought with the Unionists. A union liturgy was conducted, for the first time, on December 12, 1452 in the St. Sophia. The masses didn’t attend and one Italian eyewitness described how lamentations against the liturgy could be heard all across the city. “Henceforth the Orthodox shunned St. Sophia as “nothing better than a Jewish synagogue or a heathen temple”; they worshiped only in the securely Orthodox churches of the city. (p 71 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) Even the emperor, Constantine, was jeered in the streets during the winter of 1452-1453 (p 75 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) The St. Sophia wasn’t prayed in by the masses until 5 months later – when conquest was imminent. (p 200 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley)

Rather than the brutal conquest of religious fanatics hell-bent on fulfilling a religious prophecy by destroying the heart of a unified Christendom as Spencer attempts to portray, the truth is that the conquest of Constantinople was due to a variety of historical causes – including the role of Latin Christians in undermining the foundations of the city nearly two hundreds before it which was just as brutal and violent as the Byzantine ventures into Muslim lands and, of course, the Ottoman conquest of the Constantinople in 1584. There is nothing that sets out Islam as any different from Christianity at the time. If anything, Islam surpassed Christianity in a variety of ways during the area in terms of the treatment of religious minorities, but more on this later.

Arguing that the Ottomans slaughtered everyone in sight upon breaching the city’s walls isn’t accurate. For one thing, the elderly, women, and children that Spencer laments about being slaughtered also participated in resisting the invaders by throwing bricks, stones, and fire upon them. While it is deplorable that loss of life occurred, distinctions between combatants and non-combatants wasn’t always easily identifiable. (p 218 of “The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) The Byzantine chroniclers undoubtedly portrayed the conquest of their society with the greatest of horror, but they also had a tendency to exaggerate things. After all, it is estimated that only 4,000 had been killed in the day’s fighting, which is certainly not anywhere near the slaughtering of the entire city. (p 233 of “The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley). By comparison, the total number of Palestinians who died during the Second Intifada alone was 3,386. (p 100 of “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt) Moreover, we know for certain that there were parts of the city that were completely left untouched such as the villages of Studion and Petrion which had surrendered voluntarily and were protected by the Ottoman military police from plundering altogether. This resulted in a number of churches and monasteries being preserved as a result. (p 221 of “The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) As was mentioned above, half the population was still Christian in the 1500s is hardly proof that the Ottomans came in, killed everyone or forced them to convert. Although it is true that Christians from other parts of the Ottoman Empire had migrated into the city, contributing to the restoration of its Christian flavor, this only further undermines Spencer’s claim that everyone was forcibly converted or killed. After all, if there were still enough Christians from other regions of the empire to populate the decimated city, this is proof that Christianity had survived the Ottoman Empire. Spencer’s strongest argument against the conquest of Constantinople was the fact that the inhabitants were taken into slavery – estimated at 30,000. (p 237 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) However, it should be pointed that some slaves were later ransomed and contributed to the repopulation of the city. Also, it shouldn’t be overlooked that the Byzantines themselves had engaged in slave-raiding themselves, even on the eve of the Ottoman siege. Western European slave-raiding had already been sanctified by the Catholic Church in 1452. There’s a difference between condemning the Ottomans for engaging in slavery because slavery is a reprehensible act and condemning them alone for engaging it when virtually every other society engaged in similar practices.

Perhaps what undermines Spencer’s argument the most is the lengths that the Ottomans went to in preserving Christianity as opposed to destroying it. The truth is that the moment Sultan Mehmet stepped into the city, he immediately stopped the looting of the city (Ottoman looting lasted only one day, unlike the three days that the Crusaders spent looting after they conquered Constantinople in 1204) (p 231 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) He immediately began taking steps to reconstructing it and preserving its Christian flavor.  “One of the first steps taken by Muhammad II, after the capture of Constantinople and the re-establishment of order in that city, was to secure the allegiance of the Christians by proclaiming himself the protector of the Greek Church. Persecution of the Christians was strictly forbidden; a decree was granted to the newly elected patriarch which secured to him and his successors and the bishops under him, the enjoyment of the old privileges, revenues and exemptions enjoyed under the former rule.” (p 146 of “The Spread of Islam in the World: A History of Peaceful Preaching” by Professor Thomas Arnold) Professor Arnold also aptly points out that while it is true that the Byzantines had to pay jizyah, it was far less of a financial burden than the “endless feudal obligations of the Franks and the countless extortions of the Byzantines.” (p 149 of “The Spread of Islam in the World: A History of Peaceful Preaching” by Professor Thomas Arnold) In addition to restoring the Greek patriarch and giving them control of the civil system as well – a power that the Orthodox Church didn’t have even under the Byzantine Empire – the Ottomans returned many of the churches back into Christian hands (with the exception of the Hagia Sophia). (p 277 of “Sea of Faith: Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean World” by Stephen O’Shea) The city had become such a center of tolerance that persecuted people from other regions of Europe came to it, which further illustrates the intolerance of Christian states compared to that of the Muslim states: “Although many Jews accepted to convert to Christianity, only to be later persecuted by the Inquisition for having done so, many others fled across the Mediterranean. Great numbers of the Sephardim found a home in the lands of the Ottomans, particularly in Thessalonica – which in effect became a Spanish Jewish city – and in Konstantinyye.” (p 281 “Sea of Faith: Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean World” by Stephen O’Shea) The fact that Spanish Jews migrated to Constantinople all the way from Western Europe to escape the inquisition is an illustration of not only the level of tolerance exhibited by the Ottoman Empire but also Islam in general since the Spanish Jews survived Andalusian Muslim rule for hundreds of years without being scathed. It wasn’t until the Christian monarchy of Ferdinand and Isabella conquered Spain that the Jews were persecuted and had to flee to other Muslim lands. Of course, there are clear-cut examples of Christian tolerance and clear cut examples of Muslim intolerance, but the general tendencies of each group of people were more similar than dissimilar and many of the extreme actions were not condoned by religious orthodoxy but often by political actors acting on their own.

In conclusion, Robert Spencer’s account of the conquest of Constantinople is unhistorical and skewed by his sensationalist attempts to bash Islam and render illegitimate the Palestinian claim which is substantiated by international law.

Share This