Byzantium army..continued

[driftwood]

George Ostrogosky wrote a very high quality history of Byzantium, but many of his conclusions have been questioned or superceded in the decades since. The most recent and up-to-date survey is Warren Treadgold's History of the Byzantine State and Society.

On page 709, he states:

Early in 1453, seven hundred Genoese and three hundred Venetians arrived, bringing the total number of soldiers in Constantinople to some three thousand foreigners and five thousand Byzantines ...

Since the Turkish cannons could only fire at intervals, and the giant one could fire just seven times a day, the Byzantines were able to patch up much of the damage to the walls as it was done ...

From what I've read in several sources (including this one), the cannon had a notable impact (no pun intended!), but not a decisive one. Although the way the siege eventually ended was not terribly impressive, it was only a matter of time given the 80,000 men Mehmed II had, and the external aid Constantine XI didn't have. A Byzantine comeback in the chaos after 1402 or even as late as the 1440s (with various civil wars and Hungarian invasions) would have been plausible, but not in 1453.

Why are people arguing about the quality of the Byzantine army? I'm a Byzantium Booster (tm), but the Byzantine army hadn't had a success worth writing home about since the 12th century.

As an aside, the Emperors did NOT have an unlimited supply of money; if they had, they would have been able to make the other half of the payments owed to the Venetians in the 4th Crusade, and things would not have escalated/degenerated (depending on your point of view) so much.

edit: For those who consider Treadgold suspect, Steven Runciman has this to say on page 85 of The Fall of Constantinople, 1453:

At the end of March, when the Turkish army was moving through Thrace, Constantine sent for his secretary Phrantzes and told him to make a census of all the men in the city, including monks, who were capable of bearing arms. When Phrantzes added up the lists he found that there were only four thousand, nine hundred and eighty-three available Greeks and slightly under two thousand foreigners. Constantine was appalled by the figure and charged Phrantzes not to publich it. But Italian witnesses came to a similar conclusion.

driftwood

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Lord Joseph, Jim Winsor.

This is a good place to start. Look around for the Byz section.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html

John Norwich has a couple of easy to read books on Byzantium, very detailed and easy to obtain. Gibbons ok but dated, he has the facts right but has a different perspective which makes his conclusions somewhat unfair.

ZheShiWO,
clearly you are intrested in the subject matter, but unfourtunatly have not read enough to have an informed educated opinion.

Ostrogorskys work will have an adendum, dealing with type set errors and other omisions, but you seem unaware of it, i suggest you aquire it before displaying your ignorance further.

The walls were 14 miles long, that would be roughly 10 yards/metres per man, of course the landside would draw a higher concentration than the seaward approaches, only a moron would think it plausable that 2500 men would be able to prevent a rapid conclusion to the assault, but as anyone who has read in any degree of depth would know that was not the number of defenders, as its detailed by most authours, 4983 Greeks and rather less than 2000 foreignors from 6 April onwards. Although Turkish ships made every effort to prevent seaborne movements, Alfonso of Aragon along with 3 Genose galleys made his way in on 20 april,bringing grain from Scily, and war provisions paid for by the Pope.

3 May a ship leaves to find news of a Venenitian relief expedition, returns on the 22.

Giovani Longo was hit in the chest and carried to a ship in the Harbor, if you dont know even the basics you will of course not understand the references to which others alude.

As Byzantium fell a flotila of 7 Genoese and 6 Byzantine ships loaded with refugess fled the sack, down the Marma and into the open sea and safty.

driftwood
Nice post, Treadgold's work i have not read, but your post excludes the 700 Venitians who left on the 26 Feb, in 7 ships, thus the 700 Genoese under Longo and the 300 Venitians under Minotto who arrived on 29 Jan were not quite the gain they could have been.

Hannibal

 

[unmerged(4990)]

No source do I have? John Julius Norwich and a multitude of others. Your German historian was wrong. Got it? Wrong. Germans were never too nice to Byzantium anyways, why should they all of a sudden write good about them?

And I've re-read my sources way more than 10 times. 5000 greeks, 2000 foreigners, 1000 italians. Comprende? Or do you need me to stamp it on your hand for next time I ask.

Not only did ships get through the so called turkish "blockade", the Ottoman admiral was exiled forever because the wind would not allow the Turkish ships to approach the genoese/venetian/byzantine ships and the g/v/b ships were all GALLEONS. That means they just linked themselves up with chain and sat there like a castle, and chopped off the hands and heads of anybody that tried to board.

The city fell not because they were outnumbered, but because the Italians fled. Had the Italians NOT fled, the already de-moralized Greeks wouldn't have been further de-moralized and trapped in their own walls.

And yeah I think the racial slur was a good one. They ran away just because their leader started to whine. Oh and Greeks are quite impervious to pain. They have suffered it ever since the fall of Byzantium... Hell even before. They were detested by the Catholic west, their city sacked by crusaders sent to help them, then sacked again to recover it. They were eaten away by the Turks, attacked by the Turks, then the Italians sent to aid them ran away at the first bad turn. I'd say a wound from an arrow or sword would be nothing compared to any of that.

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by driftwood


A Byzantine comeback in the chaos after 1402 or even as late as the 1440s (with various civil wars and Hungarian invasions) would have been plausible, but not in 1453.

driftwood

Doesn't he mean 1204 (4th Crusade)?

 

[unmerged(4990)]

No, he means the timeframe stated.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Constantine XI
The city fell not because they were outnumbered, but because the Italians fled. Had the Italians NOT fled, the already de-moralized Greeks wouldn't have been further de-moralized and trapped in their own walls.

And yeah I think the racial slur was a good one. They ran away just because their leader started to whine. Oh and Greeks are quite impervious to pain.

You realize that Byzantium did collapse over a number of centuries don't you, or was that all the Italian's fault too?

 

[driftwood]

Crazy_Ivan80: Well, yes, the 4th Crusade in 1204 was a major, how shall we say, hurdle in the recovery of Byzantium, but I had set my sights much lower, and was merely talking about a last-minute 15th century recovery. Not even recovery; better shot at survival.

Hannibal: I was only interested in sharing what official sources had to say about numbers present for the siege. You're right, of course, but I wasn't going for perfect accuracy ... just an official ballpark figure.

The fact seems to be that on that given day in May, 1453 (too lazy to look up the exact date), the Turks were able to force their way in because the Genoese fell back, and they were providing the core of the fighting power. They didn't lose the siege, though. It would have ended sooner or later in Turkish victory, because it was only a matter of time before the 80,000 Turks or the fleet they could afford to continue rebuilding indefinitely would take their toll.

There's really no need to cast blame on a city, nationality, and military company kind of enough to lend aid to a hopeless cause (even if they did it for reasons of self-interest).


Let's also remember that in 1030 Byzantium had possibly the best, most reliable military force in Europe, not subject to conflicting military jurisdictions, 40 days of service, or whatnot, with the elite portion being a professional, standing force. If the Byzantines were reduced over the course of 4 centuries to depending on 700 Genoese mercenaries who were more loyal to their commander than a foreign emperor, it was their own fault.

driftwood

 

[unmerged(4990)]

Yes that was the Italians' fault. If they hadn't sacked the city in 1204, the Byzantines would've never been divided. They would've been infinitely stronger when the Sultans of the house of Uthman decided they wanted to take out Byzantium. Hell Byzantium might even be a nation today had not the Italians so utterly broken her through the highest form of treachery...

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Constantine XI
Yes that was the Italians' fault. If they hadn't sacked the city in 1204, the Byzantines would've never been divided. They would've been infinitely stronger when the Sultans of the house of Uthman decided they wanted to take out Byzantium. Hell Byzantium might even be a nation today had not the Italians so utterly broken her through the highest form of treachery...

Is this based on anything other than nationalist wishfull thinking?

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by driftwood
Let's also remember that in 1030 Byzantium had possibly the best, most reliable military force in Europe, not subject to conflicting military jurisdictions, 40 days of service, or whatnot, with the elite portion being a professional, standing force. If the Byzantines were reduced over the course of 4 centuries to depending on 700 Genoese mercenaries who were more loyal to their commander than a foreign emperor, it was their own fault.

driftwood

Constantine, please, think about this ^.

 

[driftwood]

The only reason the Italians sacked Constantinople in 1204 is that Alexius IV (at the age of 21 or something) invited them from the Dalmatian coast in order to place him and his blinded father, Isaac II Angelus (who had already been deposed, though he himself was a usurper) back on the throne. He did this by offering sums that even he must have known were impossible to raise.

That's like trying to stop your house from burning down by setting another fire to try and consume it first. Ok, maybe that makes no sense, but Alexius IV wasn't the smartest chap either.

Just for the record, the Byzantines did try to raise every bit of money they could in the city to pay off the Crusaders, and the Venetians seemed to enjoy watching things degenerate towards violence when they could have allowed them to pay in installments.

But if the Byzantines hadn't been more interested in hiring mercenary armies to attack rival emperors, the Crusaders would never have gotten anywhere near the city in the first place.

driftwood

 

[unmerged(4990)]

Who's decision was it to sack the city? Doge Dandalo. The blind old hag who destroyed the mightiest empire in christendom.

 

[Ebusitanus]

It really hurts ones eyes to read so much blind nationalistic Bizantine/Roman BS...German historians hate Bizantium, Italian treachery through the centuries, Constantinople wouldn't have fallen if for them fleeing...huh...Good God!...Constantine you are really a pathetic person and the worst thing is that I believe you just argue just for the sake of keeping this thread alive, throwing around unfounded acusations, agreeing on racial slurs and what else...
Hannibal you shouldn't have said anything.