Receive Constantinople: The Last Great Siege, 1453 By Roger Crowley E-Text
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 militarypolitical 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, 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 inat the age of twelve, His father had tried and failed to sieze Constantinople inand it was a dream of the son as well, Bythe 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 ofbetween 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.
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'Fall of Constantinople' may fill in the gaps, There aren't many recent Ottoman histories written in English,改為kobo繁體版
跟上一本新書同為英國史家所寫的"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 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 Constantinopleperhaps 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,fighters held out against a force more thanx stronger, It's nothing short of amazing,
Crowley describes the fighting and the behindthescenes action in a way that brings the efforts on both side to vibrant life, I found myself crossing fingers as last ditch efforts were madeeven 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,
covers a contentious moment in the history of the struggle between East and West, There was a lot of potential for partisan campaigning, characterslander and historical sleightofhand, 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. Ако не бяха двете слабости, които ще изложа подолу, бих дал на книгата три звезди. Какво ме накара обаче да дам само една:
. 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 поконкретно 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 найзначимата от тях дог. тази от/година. Участието на българите в нея и помощта им срещу арабите в текста е сведено до едно изречение на страница, 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 описние 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 полошо. Независимо какъв е отговорът, няма как да оценя виско труд, който има такъв сериозен недостатък.
. Липсата на анализ на събитията и фактите. Авторът е сглобил разказ за случилото се през пролетта наг. , но не отива подалеч. 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. An eminently readable and detailed account of the MayFall 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, and Mehmet II, a young man of, 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 manylayered 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 Corinthfrom 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: sitelinkThe 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 Constantinoplewere very useful and helped me visualize,
Highly recommended.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大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:lt:君士坦丁堡的聖戰 與西方和伊斯蘭的碰撞gt: 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根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月日上午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sitelink征服者葡萄牙帝國的崛起我要買電子版,