GREEK FIRE - 1453 CONSTANTINOPLE

Greek fire was obselet by the time of the conquest, it was replaced by artillary and much more potent kinds of fire weapons since the 11th century. Anyway, Constantinople was going to fall anyway, it was already a vassale for the Turks under the name of an empire and it fell.

Al Jassas wrote: Greek fire was obselet by the time of the conquest, it was replaced by artillary and much more potent kinds of fire weapons since the 11th century. Anyway, Constantinople was going to fall anyway, it was already a vassale for the Turks under the name of an empire and it fell.   Al-Jassas

Understoond and I agree with your statment but they still used it in defense of the city on a limited scale. I put the source above but I have read about this in other sources. I think it was Constantine XI who was the one who questioned its use in 1453. I have read many books about Byzantine history although my degree focused on pre-Greek to Hellenism. The Byzantines could not use their larger cannons because they damaged the walls more than the incoming bombardment by the Turks- ask byz Emp-

Al Jassas can you read Byzantine Greek? I am sure Byzantine Emp can since he is in that program. I still cannot recall how close Koine Greek is to Byzantine but if he sees this I am sure I will get an answer.

Forgotten??? Or opened from inside?

If those cannons did not destroy the walls then what on earth did?

Helli eagle

Al Jassas wrote: Turks had the most advanced military at that time and nothing would have stopped them from conquerin the city.

Reginmund wrote: Al Jassas wrote: Turks had the most advanced military at that time and nothing would have stopped them from conquerin the city.   Except, of course, if Constantine XI had played the part of Ottoman vassal more willingly instead of continuously agitating the Sultan. It should be remembered that Constantine XI wouldn't have been emperor in the first place if it hadn't been for Murad II electing him.

I agree it would have been better if the Emperor had surrendered but they had this misguided idea that God or the west would rescue them in the end and Constantine did not trust Mehmet. There was also the feeling that the loss of the city was due to their sins and this was God's judgement upon them. The fact they used Greek fire against Mehment's artillary shows how desperate they were to save the city.

An interesting quote from Dourkas, Decline and fall of Byazantium to the Ottoman Turks - translated by Harry J. Magoulias – Wayne State University Press 1975 Detroit, 218

The Emperor did not trust Mehmet and sent back his reply, “For it was not possible to take the city from the Romans and turn it over to the Turks. Were we to do this, along what road or in what place or Christian City could they settle where the inhabitants would not spit upon the Romans and revile them and mortify them? And not only Christians but also Turks and Jews would treat them with contempt.”

(pride-??)

Reginmund wrote: eaglecap wrote: I agree it would have been better if the Emperor had surrendered   I didn't say it would've been better, simply that the siege could have been avoided this way. I prefer things the way they happened; much more dramatic, an end so fitting of the Roman Empire it could've been scripted.

Yes I agree and it adds a little Romanticism that my Byzantine ancestors fought till the end.

Guess wrote: The turks had a total of 3 cannons. I would think greek fire would be useful against infantry attacks, when they attack the wall. I would think it would make sense to put these near gates or even lined up inside of gates in case someone broke through.

Let me look it up but I do believe they had more than three cannons.

The Turks had urban the gunmaster, control of many of the armouries in anatolia and some massive bombards. The Byzantines had most of their trade controlled by most of the fortresses that Murad and Memhet built along the side of the Bosphorus and quite obslete weapons anyway. The Turks appear to have been very modernised very early on - everyone speaks about Pavia 1525 as one of the most prominent first battles which was won to artillery but in 1516, the Turks defeated Shah Is'mail's Safavid army in Anatolia due to cannon and trained jannisary musketeers. Even at this time they appear to have been very comptent with the latest developments in military technology. Under Murad I, Mehmet I and them Murad II and Mehmet II (they are actually two sultans though - father and son) the Byzantine empire was, as someone above said - a vassal state anyway. I think it was Mehmet who earlier had forced Constantine XI to campagin to the east with him. At this period, with all of these political developments, Greek fire wasn't going to do a lot, and even if they did survive the siege hypothetically because of it, the Byzantine empire's fate was sealed. It seems to have declined at the c1200 Latin invasion and Alexius V. Apparently before the siege, the Byzantines tried to unify with Rome again for help, since they broke with Rome in 1054.