OrthodoxChristianity.net

General Forums => Christian News => Topic started by: Basil 320 on May 29, 2009, 02:27:19 AM

Title: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Basil 320 on May 29, 2009, 02:27:19 AM
Five Hundred Fifty Six years ago, this date, the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople.  Eternal Memory to those who lost their lives in defense of New Rome.


(John F. Kennedy was born this date in 1917.)
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: scamandrius on May 29, 2009, 02:49:08 AM
Memory eternal!

If anyone wants to read a very vivid, descriptive and engaging account of the fall of Constantinople by a historian of great repute, I commend to all of you Sir Steven Runcimann's The Fall of Constantinople 1453.  It is extremely readable and accessible to the layman and scholar alike.  Very recommended.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Starlight on May 29, 2009, 03:52:26 AM
Memory eternal!

Truly very sad day in history. One of the worst ever. Especially when you look at all following events.

Memory eternal!

If anyone wants to read a very vivid, descriptive and engaging account of the fall of Constantinople by a historian of great repute, I commend to all of you Sir Steven Runcimann's The Fall of Constantinople 1453.  It is extremely readable and accessible to the layman and scholar alike.  Very recommended.

Yes, this book has been written perfectly.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Αριστοκλής on May 29, 2009, 04:48:28 AM
Of course, back then the City was on old calendar, but nevertheless, a sad day indeed.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Theophilos78 on May 29, 2009, 05:56:33 AM


I sent two birds to the Red Apple tree, of which the legends speak

One was killed, the other was hurt, and they never came back to me.


Of the marble emperor there is no word, no talk.

But grandmothers sing about him to the children like a fairy tale.

I sent two birds, two house martins, to the Red Apple Tree.

But there they stayed and became a dream, kai dakrismena xronia.


This is a song written in honour of the great martyr and emperor Constantine XI Paleologos.

Memory eternal!

The fall of Constantinople is a tragic event indeed, but the Church of Christ is still alive! God bless & assist His Church and His elected.

Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: ironsiderodger on May 29, 2009, 08:18:04 AM
Sad day, so much valor shown, so much lost- and yet some things could not be extinguished; memory eternal.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: FrChris on May 29, 2009, 08:56:47 AM
Memory Eternal to those martyrs who fell!

And may we never forget their bravery!
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: ialmisry on May 29, 2009, 09:44:17 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Flag_of_the_Byzantine_Empire.svg/485px-Flag_of_the_Byzantine_Empire.svg.png)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Flag_of_the_Byzantine_Empire.svg/485px-Flag_of_the_Byzantine_Empire.svg.png

εἰς τὰν Πόλιν

and I don't mean Istanbul.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Papist on May 29, 2009, 03:46:41 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Dan-Romania on May 29, 2009, 03:51:56 PM
Eternal Memory to the Martyrs .
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: _Seraphim_ on May 29, 2009, 04:33:36 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

This man would be the one to ask about that subject in general:
Nicetas Choniates, 1204 A.D.


Memory Eternal to all the Martyrs of Constantinople!
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: EofK on May 29, 2009, 04:39:34 PM
Memory eternal!
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Αριστοκλής on May 29, 2009, 04:40:57 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Yes.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Papist on May 29, 2009, 04:44:28 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Yes.
Tragically beautiful.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: lubeltri on May 29, 2009, 04:52:01 PM
It is also the feast day of St. Constantine XI, who fell in battle before the walls of the great city.

Memory eternal!

Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: lubeltri on May 29, 2009, 04:52:51 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Yes.
Tragically beautiful.

Emperor Constantine XI was a supporter of the reconciliation of East and West at the council of Florence.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Αριστοκλής on May 29, 2009, 05:22:09 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Yes.
Tragically beautiful.

Emperor Constantine XI was a supporter of the reconciliation of East and West at the council of Florence.
Yes, he and his brother preceding him were of the 'war group' who favored military confrontation with the Turks and both of who foisted the false Union of Florence upon the Church pursuant to that end (They different from their father Manuel II, unfortunately).
On the fateful last day of the Roman Empire the last emperor hedged his bets in the eternal life by confessing and receiving Holy Communion from a Greek bishop, a Latin bishop, and an Armenian bishop. Union, so to speak for all the wrong reasons. But, for a fleeting instant in our time, all Christiandom was united.
When we unite in true (orthos) belief (doxia), we will be unconquerable.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: sdcheung on May 29, 2009, 05:25:31 PM
memory Eternal...

BUT, we will get it back.

The Marmareno Vasilefs has his Sword almost allllll the way out of the hilt, so that day of reckoning is coming.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 29, 2009, 05:27:18 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

This man would be the one to ask about that subject in general:
Nicetas Choniates, 1204 A.D.


Memory Eternal to all the Martyrs of Constantinople!
Um.. you got the dates mixed up. Papist's question was revelant to the Fall (1453), not the sacking(1204).
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: mike on May 29, 2009, 05:27:41 PM
On the fateful last day of the Roman Empire the last emperor hedged his bets in the eternal life by confessing and receiving Holy Communion from a Greek bishop, a Latin bishop, and an Armenian bishop.

What a preventive guy. I cannot understand why some people don't have any problems with venerating him as a Saint and complain about RJ calendar or something like that.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: sdcheung on May 29, 2009, 05:28:38 PM
personally ... he is a Saint.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 29, 2009, 05:31:20 PM
It really does tear at my heart reading about the Fall. It was a sad day for Christendom.


Memory Eternal
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on May 29, 2009, 06:37:57 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Weren't there supposed to be more Latins there to help defend the city?  Didn't the Pope back out and watch the city fall, securing Old Rome's place as the sole heir to rule over global Christendom (aside from Russia)?  I have read many historians argue that Old Rome wanted New Rome to fall, as they had been competitors for some time, each side vying to head Christianity as its global representative.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Αριστοκλής on May 29, 2009, 06:49:20 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Weren't there supposed to be more Latins there to help defend the city?  Didn't the Pope back out and watch the city fall, securing Old Rome's place as the sole heir to rule over global Christendom (aside from Russia)?  I have read many historians argue that Old Rome wanted New Rome to fall, as they had been competitors for some time, each side vying to head Christianity as its global representative.

I do recall reading there were many, if not mostly, Latins in the last defense of the nearly totally depopulated city.
As to the rest, I don't think the pope was ever "there" in the first instance to be charge with abandoning the city. He, along with the rest of the west, just watched. (And I am not commenting on that either as condemnation or as anything else - just as a fact).
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 29, 2009, 06:52:20 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Weren't there supposed to be more Latins there to help defend the city? 
Yeah, and they died fighting. Or did the Muslims say, " all Latins are free to go except for the Greeks" ?
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: antiderivative on May 29, 2009, 06:58:15 PM
Quote
On the fateful last day of the Roman Empire the last emperor hedged his bets in the eternal life by confessing and receiving Holy Communion from a Greek bishop, a Latin bishop, and an Armenian bishop. Union, so to speak for all the wrong reasons. But, for a fleeting instant in our time, all Christiandom was united.

Didn't Russia stay out of the union? Could this explain why they didn't help Constantinople?
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on May 29, 2009, 07:03:26 PM
Quote
On the fateful last day of the Roman Empire the last emperor hedged his bets in the eternal life by confessing and receiving Holy Communion from a Greek bishop, a Latin bishop, and an Armenian bishop. Union, so to speak for all the wrong reasons. But, for a fleeting instant in our time, all Christiandom was united.

Didn't Russia stay out of the union? Could this explain why they didn't help Constantinople?

Bishop Isidore of Kiev was present at the council and advocated for the union. After the council he returned to Russia where he was arrested and imprisoned.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: antiderivative on May 29, 2009, 07:15:21 PM
Did the Greeks submit to the pope and convert to Roman Catholicism (for as long as the union lasted) or did they simply reach a compromise?
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Basil 320 on May 29, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
REPLY TO REPLY #27

It was a "reunion" as I understand it; not a conversion.  However, it's my understanding that the faithful of Constantinople, likewise, rejected the reunion, overwhelmingly.  The agreements of the so called "Council of Florence-Ferrara" (sp) amounted to a capitulation of Eastern Orthodoxy of its disputes with the Roman West, i.e. Filioque, Claims of Papal authority, etc., except that the liturgical practices and clerical marital discipline of the East could be retained.  It was the blueprint for the shortly thereafter implemented unia.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: _Seraphim_ on May 29, 2009, 09:42:58 PM
Um.. you got the dates mixed up. Papist's question was revelant to the Fall (1453), not the sacking(1204).


No.  I did not get the dates mixed up.  You really don't see the relevance of the fact that Constantinople (Greeks) were horrendously, brutally sacked by the Latins in 1204 (when they were supposedly there to help defend the Greeks against the Islamic military!) in regards to the issue of whether or not Latins were “co-defending” that same city with Greeks against Islamic forces barely two centuries later?  It’s great and all that the Latins eventually got around to helping the Greeks,... but not exactly that great.  As the saying goes:  Too little too late.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: _Seraphim_ on May 29, 2009, 09:43:18 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Weren't there supposed to be more Latins there to help defend the city?  Didn't the Pope back out and watch the city fall, securing Old Rome's place as the sole heir to rule over global Christendom (aside from Russia)?  I have read many historians argue that Old Rome wanted New Rome to fall, as they had been competitors for some time, each side vying to head Christianity as its global representative.


Quote
Constantinople had become the gold mine which supplied Latin Christendom.
The wealth was so great that the looting continued for sixty years.

http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html (http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html)
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: _Seraphim_ on May 29, 2009, 09:43:37 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Weren't there supposed to be more Latins there to help defend the city? 
Yeah, and they died fighting. Or did the Muslims say, " all Latins are free to go except for the Greeks" ?


I can’t really imagine Nicetas Choniates being too impressed.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: _Seraphim_ on May 29, 2009, 09:43:56 PM
Did the Greeks submit to the pope and convert to Roman Catholicism (for as long as the union lasted) or did they simply reach a compromise?


Quote
In April 1204 the crusdaers carried out a second attack on Constantinople.  For three days the soldiers ran riot, forgetting their oaths not to harm women or attack churches or monasteries.  Constantinople was shared out... The city was very wealthy and enormous amounts of booty were shared out between the new rulers.

The crusaders had become rich and Constantinople was now part of the Western Empire.  But within 60 years the city was recaptured by the Greeks and re-established as the head of the Eastern Empire.  The Greek Orthodox Church refused to submit to the Pope, and blamed him for what had happened.

http://books.google.com (http://books.google.com/books?id=GAzf_UlJCgYC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Constantinople+refused+submit+Crusaders&source=bl&ots=h0GD1hnrjl&sig=th5VGwpq-0Hnw6wwU1UaQPUsbjM&hl=en&ei=ZHYgSoWIMaLaswP629meBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA33,M1)
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 29, 2009, 09:49:57 PM
Um.. you got the dates mixed up. Papist's question was revelant to the Fall (1453), not the sacking(1204).


No.  I did not get the dates mixed up.  You really don't see the relevance of the fact that Constantinople (Greeks) were horrendously, brutally sacked by the Latins in 1204 (when they were supposedly there to help defend the Greeks against the Islamic military!) in regards to the issue of whether or not Latins were “co-defending” that same city with Greeks against Islamic forces barely two centuries later?  It’s great and all that the Latins eventually got around to helping the Greeks,... but not exactly that great.  As the saying goes:  Too little too late.

O.K., I'll respond with a question; what's the title of this thread? The fall of Constantinople? or the sack of Constantinople?
Sheesh! All I wanted to say was Memory Eternal. I can sense your animosity towards Catholics. I'll pray for you
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 29, 2009, 09:54:58 PM
Is it true that Latins and Greeks fought side by side and celebrated liturgy together just before the fall?

Weren't there supposed to be more Latins there to help defend the city? 
Yeah, and they died fighting. Or did the Muslims say, " all Latins are free to go except for the Greeks" ?


I can’t really imagine Nicetas Choniates being too impressed.

And the events that occurred in 1182? Who did they impress?
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Andrew21091 on May 29, 2009, 10:02:09 PM
"O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance, they have defiled Thy holy temple, O Lord. They have made the dead bodies of Thy servants to be food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Thy saints for the beasts of the earth."

Memory eternal!
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: lubeltri on May 30, 2009, 02:08:21 AM
On the fateful last day of the Roman Empire the last emperor hedged his bets in the eternal life by confessing and receiving Holy Communion from a Greek bishop, a Latin bishop, and an Armenian bishop.

What a preventive guy. I cannot understand why some people don't have any problems with venerating him as a Saint and complain about RJ calendar or something like that.

Whose saint he is depends on which Church he received his sacraments from last. You're in luck if the Greeks won the race to be last in order ;)
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Αριστοκλής on May 30, 2009, 08:26:22 AM
On the fateful last day of the Roman Empire the last emperor hedged his bets in the eternal life by confessing and receiving Holy Communion from a Greek bishop, a Latin bishop, and an Armenian bishop.

What a preventive guy. I cannot understand why some people don't have any problems with venerating him as a Saint and complain about RJ calendar or something like that.

Whose saint he is depends on which Church he received his sacraments from last. You're in luck if the Greeks won the race to be last in order ;)

It would seem the real answer is the church which venerates him.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: lubeltri on May 30, 2009, 12:07:04 PM
On the fateful last day of the Roman Empire the last emperor hedged his bets in the eternal life by confessing and receiving Holy Communion from a Greek bishop, a Latin bishop, and an Armenian bishop.

What a preventive guy. I cannot understand why some people don't have any problems with venerating him as a Saint and complain about RJ calendar or something like that.

Whose saint he is depends on which Church he received his sacraments from last. You're in luck if the Greeks won the race to be last in order ;)

It would seem the real answer is the church which venerates him.

That would be both Greek Orthodox and Greek Cathoilics

It's interesting, though---Constantine XI died in full communion with Rome. So it is possible to be a saint in Orthodoxy while being in communion with Rome post-schism?
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: mike on May 30, 2009, 01:45:25 PM
That would be both Greek Orthodox and Greek Cathoilics

It's interesting, though---Constantine XI died in full communion with Rome. So it is possible to be a saint in Orthodoxy while being in communion with Rome post-schism?

Church economy.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: stashko on May 30, 2009, 01:57:16 PM
Вечнаја Памјат...Амин
Мemory Eternal...Amen

Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: antiderivative on May 30, 2009, 02:21:41 PM
Quote
That would be both Greek Orthodox and Greek Cathoilics

It's interesting, though---Constantine XI died in full communion with Rome. So it is possible to be a saint in Orthodoxy while being in communion with Rome post-schism?

I don't think he is an official saint. He certainly died a heroic death and many do venerate him as a saint, but I don't think he has feast day or was ever glorified. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Αριστοκλής on May 30, 2009, 02:47:01 PM
Quote
That would be both Greek Orthodox and Greek Cathoilics

It's interesting, though---Constantine XI died in full communion with Rome. So it is possible to be a saint in Orthodoxy while being in communion with Rome post-schism?

I don't think he is an official saint. He certainly died a heroic death and many do venerate him as a saint, but I don't think he has feast day or was ever glorified. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Perhaps. Does anyone know who Emperor Constantine the New, venerated on the Greek calendar on Sept 3/16 is?
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: theotokos on June 04, 2009, 11:33:59 AM
If anyone of you are interested in knowing how Constantinople was fallen. I highly recommend you to read Yorgios Sfrancis's Journal(Kronikon Mikron). Though there's sth important to be watched for there are two journals in the history written like that. Kronikos Mikron is a day by day journal written by Yorgios Sfrancis, but there's also one called Kronikon Maius which was written after 200 years from the fall of Constantinople by Makarios Melissinos. Kronikon Maius has exact same lines from the Maius, Makarios has used some of Sfrancis's sentences. Kronikon Maius doesn't really have a chronologic order but Maius does.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: Clancy Boy on June 10, 2009, 04:00:30 AM
"O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance, they have defiled Thy holy temple, O Lord. They have made the dead bodies of Thy servants to be food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Thy saints for the beasts of the earth."

Memory eternal!

I thought Christianity was a religion of forgiveness not of revenge.
Title: Re: The Fall of Constantinople, May 29, 1453
Post by: witega on June 10, 2009, 04:19:20 AM
Quote
That would be both Greek Orthodox and Greek Cathoilics

It's interesting, though---Constantine XI died in full communion with Rome. So it is possible to be a saint in Orthodoxy while being in communion with Rome post-schism?

I don't think he is an official saint. He certainly died a heroic death and many do venerate him as a saint, but I don't think he has feast day or was ever glorified. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Perhaps. Does anyone know who Emperor Constantine the New, venerated on the Greek calendar on Sept 3/16 is?

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Constantine_the_New (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Constantine_the_New)
And no. Constantine XI who was willing to sell out the Faith for a kingdom of this world is not remembered by the Church as a saint.