The siege of Constantinople 1453: seven contemporary accounts

213 Pages·1972·41.015 MB·English

by  J. R. Melville Jones

THE SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE
1453: SEVEN CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS
80SPI-/ORUS
Bridge of
XyloportGate Casks/
Caligaria
Kerkoporta
C. Charisius Gate
l
Gate of
,t Romanus
SEA of MARMORA
1/2 0 1/2
MILES
Golden Gate
CONSTANTINOPLE
ote: Only one location is given here for the Gate of St
,omanus. There were in fact two gates within a short distance
one another, each of which was at times given this name, and
Mere is occasionally confusion among the sources because of
us.
THE SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 1453:
SEVEN CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS
translated by
J. R. MELVILLE JONES
AMSTERDAM
ADOLF M. HAKKERT — PUBLISHER
I w2
I.S.B.N. 90-256-0626-I
Copyright 1972 by A. M. Hakkert, Amsterdam, Netherlands
All Rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated
in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without
written permission from the publisher
0
ie Printed in the Netherlands
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION vii
Tedaldi
Leonard of Chios II
Chalcocondylas 42
Ducas 56
Riccherio 117
Dolfin 125
LomeIlin.o 131
Appendix: Mehmet's Treaty with the Genoese 136
INTRODUCTION
It would be easy to exaggerate the importance which the fall of
Constantinople had in the history of the Western world. It has often
been demonstrated that many contemporary developments — the
revival of classical learning, the expansion of the Ottoman empire
and the westward exploration which led to European settlement of
the Americas — were in train long before. But even if the event
itself was only part of an inevitable process, it has always appeared
as a moment of great historical significance in the course of Western
civilisation_
For this reason, it is surprising that so few of the accounts of it
which survive have been translated into English, and these only .so
lately. A version of Kritovoulos, History of Mehnied the 'Conqueror,
by C. T. Riggs, was published at Princeton in 1954 (now available
:as .a reprint from Greenwood Press, New York). In 1969 I published
an English translation of Nicolo Barbaro's Diary of the Siege of
Constantinople (New York, Exposition Press); this is the most
important of all the e-ctant accounts, since it gives a chronological
framework into which most of the events of the siege can be fitted.
The present collection begins with the report made by the
Florentine Giacomo Tedaldi, of whom we know nothing more than
is said of him in the text. His account has no literary merit except
that of brevity and, perhaps, the sense of immediacy which it
conveys. Its virtues are that it provides valuable confirmation of
statements made by others, and that it is also the only source for
some points of minor importance. Several versions survive, and it is
clear from a comparison of them, and from the internal evidence
which they provide, that none reproduces Tedaldi's own words. It
seems likely that when he arrived at Negropont with other survi-
vors, his story was taken down as he gave it and then translated, or,
as I think more probable, written down in French in the first place,
as he narrated his experiences in Italian or in a mixture of both
languages; this explains why he is referred to in the third person,
and why some of the names which he mentions appear in an un-
recognisable form. The document was later circulated in French and
in Latin, with the addition of character sketches of the Sultan, and
reports of his future plans. *
The manuscript from which this translation has been made is the
earliest surviving one (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, ms. fr. 6487,
ff. 18-21), which bears the date of December 31st 1453, and has the
added interest that it includes a picture of Constantinople which
must be no more than one step away from a contemporary map of
the siege.
The letter written by Leonard of Chios, Latin archbishop of
Mytilene, to Pope Nicholas V in Rome, is another eyewitness
account, which was finished by August 16th 1453. Written while
recent events were fresh in the author's memory, it is one of the
more important sources of information about the military dis-
positions of besiegers and besieged. Leonard had been brought to
Constantinople to assist Isidore of Kiev, Cardinal of Russia, in
effecting the union of the Greek and Roman churches, and his
sympathies were all in this direction. As a result, his narrative is
punctuated by outbursts against those who opposed the union; and
he is inclined to underestimate the part played by the Greeks in the
defence of their city.
The text from which this translation has been made is that
printed in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia G'raeca 159, cols 923-943. Inspec-
tion of the manuscript from which it was taken, Vatican ms. lat.
4137, has enabled a few minor corrections to be made. The Italian
translation which appears in F. Sansovino, Historia Universale
dell'Origine et Imperio de Turchi, Book III, pp. 304-313, has been
compared with the Latin text. It is clear that this is not an inde-
pendent version, but a free and sometimes hurried rendering, with
some small omissions, particularly of matters which did not show
the Venetians in the best possible light.
The next account which appears in this collection is not by an
eyewitness: Laonicus Chalcocondylas (or Chalcondyles) was an
Athenian, and resident in the Peloponnese. His Turkish History, in
c
* The various manuscripts of Tedaldi's account are discussed by M.L.-
Concasty, 'Les "Informations" de Jacques Tedaldi sur le Siege et la Prise
de Constantinople' in Byzantion 1954, 95-fro.
LE
d
viii
4
ten books, covers the period 1298-1463. Because its theme is the rise
of the Ottoman empire rather than the collapse of the Byzantine
world, his narrative of the siege, which is contained in pages 201-214
of his eighth book, is concerned with the overall course of events,
and with externals generally, rather than with the theological
disputes and political intrigues of the Greeks in Constantinople
(although he alone preserves what may be a hint that Lucas Notaras
had closer contacts with Italy than was generally realised at the
time).
His language is deliberately classicising in style. We read of
Byzantium, Dacia and the Hellenes; Cardinal Isidore comes from
Sarmatia; the prophet Mahomet is the 'hero' of the Turks; and
harmosts, prytanies and stades are mentioned from time to time.
The effect is at times like that of a good, but unadventurous, sixth-
form prose. In this translation (which has been made from the text
printed in Migne, Patrologia Graeca 159, cols 375-397 and checked
against the good edition of Darko, Budapest 1922), most of these
archaic terms have been avoided, since they have no historical
significance; similarly, his use of the word 'trireme' seems to have
no exact meaning as a nautical term, although in many other
contemporary writers (including some of those presented here), it
does seem to be used to describe one definite class of vessel.
The Byzantine History of Michael Ducas, on the other hand, which
deals with the events of the siege in chapters xxxiii-xlii, is far nearer
in its language to current non-literary Greek. It would be an
exaggeration to call it demotic in vocabulary or syntax; the language,
even at this time, is closer to that of Thucydides than it is to that
of contemporary documents, for instance, the Greek versions of
Mehmet's treaties with the Genoese and Venetians, which make no
pretence of adopting classical forms. But although Ducas is writing
in an idiom which is some distance away from the demotic, he feels
no obligation to call things by any other names than those current
in his own time, so that there is a sprinkling of Italian, Turkish and
Slav words among the rest; and his relaxed use of the nominative
absolute shows that he is not attempting to perpetuate the rules of
classical syntax.
His account is one of the longest, but as a piece of historical
writing it is not one of the most valuable, since it was composed
some years after the siege;. and most of the major events. had already
been described by others. In one respect, however, it is outstanding:.
his ability to portray a character, and. to dramatise a. scene:, has
made later writers rely on him perhaps even. more than. they: them--
selves. realised. His other great merit is that he gives some details
of the struggle between. Unionists and Schismatics. which we do not
find. in. any other writer.. But with, all his good. points, it is hard to
forgive him for incorporating so much of Jeremiah's lament over
Jerusalem into his text without alteration, in imitation of Nicetas
Choniates, The translation has been made: from the edition. by
•G recu (Bucarest 1.958):.
The- account which follows that of Ducas in this. collection: is
something of a mystery. It appears, under the name of one Cristo-
foro Riccheria, in. a. work published, in. 1568 in. Venice: which has
already been mentioned in connection with Leonard of Chios,
Sansovino's: Historia Universale: There is no indication of the origin
of Riccherio's account, which appears on pp.. 315-318 of Book III.,
and no, manuscript appears to have survived.. Nothing in the
narrative;. however;. suggests that it is not what it claims. to. be., so
we may consider it as a brief and brisk account of the. major events
of the siege, by one who was himself present at it, giving some further
details of. interest,. but not of any major importance.
The remaining Italian account, by Zorzi. Dolfin, is the least
original of any,. and for this reason only excerpts from it have been
given here. It occurs- in his Cronaca:.. a history of Venice. up to 1478,
which like. Sansovino's. Historia Universale contains, excerpts: from, a
number of original. documents-. The. sections dealing with the siege
of Constantinople, together- with a few paragraphs dealing with
contemporary events at Rome and Venice, were published by
G. M.. Thomas. in Sitzungsberichte- der k.Onigt.. bayer.. Ahademie der
Wissenschaften- 1868, pp. 1-41,. and it is this text which. has been
used: for the purpose of preparing. a translation here.
Most of Doifin's narrative is a reproduction, sometimes, a little
inaccurate;. of the letter of. Leonard of. Chios, and has therefore been
omitted. A single paragraph, the last of those printed in this
selection, comes from Philip of Rimini's short account (preserved, in
Venice;. Biblioteca Marciana mss. classe latini XIV, 250.); which
Dolfin also mentions in his prelude to, the description of the Sultan
ady
Nlehmet by Giacomo de Languschi, which he includes in his work. It
ling:.
is surely by inadvertence that he has omitted any acknowledgement
has
of Ubertino Pusculus of Brescia, from whose poem on Constantin-
ople (Book IV, lines 148-96 and 205-26) the second and third of the
tails
passages which appear here are taken.
not
Dolfin's own account of his sources has led to some confusion
d to
among modern writers, who are inclined to state that he used other
over.
eyewitness reports. This is not so; his only sources (with the addition
.etas
of Pusculus) are the ones which he himself mentions. The passage
by
which has given rise to misunderstandings is his statement about
the superiority of first-hand to second-hand evidence; and this
n is
comes directly from the second paragraph of Leonard of Chios.
isto-
The last document presented here is a letter written by the
has
former Podesta of the Genoese colony at Pera, on the opposite side
of the Golden Horn, in which the writer describes the fall of the city
igin
very briefly to his brother. Lomellino had been invited to continue
III,
at the expiry of his term of office, and had found himself responsible
the
for doing what he could to ensure the safety of his fellow-citizens.
so
His letter, written in extraordinarily bad Latin, suggests that he
ents.
felt that the actions of the Genoese demanded some defence. It has
Cher
been translated from the text printed in Notices et Extraits des mss.
de la Bibliotheque du Roi. XI, 1827, pp. 75-59.
east
As an appendage to Lomellino's letter, a translation is printed
)een
here of the Greek text of Mehmet's treaty with the Genoese, made
1-78,
after the fall of the two cities. This has been made from the improved
in a
text of the manuscript in the British Museum (Egerton Collection
iege
no. 2817) printed by E. Dalleggio d'Alessio, 'Le Texte grec du
vith
Traite Conclu par les Genois de Galata avec Mehmet II le Ier Juin
by
1453' in Hellenika XI, 1939, 115-124.
der
One most important source of evidence will not be found here,
ieen
namely the excerpts from the Chronicon of George Phrantzes (more
correctly Sphrantzes) which deal with the events of this period. A
.ttle
translation of these, with extensive commentary, is being prepared
,een
for publication by Dr M. G. Carroll — to whom I owe the elucidation
this
of many points of difficulty which arose in the preparation of the
in
present collection — which would make any translation which might
Lich
be included in this work redundant.
tan
It would be too much to hope that no error or misunderstanding
xi