(August 14, 2016 at 6:51 pm)abaris Wrote:(August 14, 2016 at 6:38 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: I'm more interested what our historian friend has to say about this stuff.
It's a strategic point to control trade between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It was also the goal of some of Mehmed's ancestors to capture Byzanz. He succeeded where they did not. Byzanz was more or less an island in 1453 with the Ottomans already having captured most of it's territory. What made it possible for Mehmed was his modern artillery being able to breach the walls. The Ottomans had the upper hand when it came to fire power in the ensuing two centuries. Only after they had failed to capture Vienna in 1683, they were pushed back. And that only because of a freak accident of the weather, not allowing their heavy artillery being brought at the gates of the city.
And again, the siege and capture of Constantinople was in accordance with the law of the time. There are several incidents where armies did the same. Not least of all the plunder of Magdeburg, a protestant city, captured by Tilly during the 30 years war. Three days plunder ensued. The offer for any city was not being plundered if they surrendered. If they didn't, the army was free to take what they wanted for three days. In the Middle Ages, see 1204 and the sackking of Constantinople by the Venetians/Crusaders, as well as in the 30 years war.
Fact is, that the Ottomans extended their religious tolerance after the capture of the city. For a price, since everyone not being muslim had to pay increased taxes to excercise their religion. But more than any of the christian realms did. In fact, the Ottomans did extend the Roman policy of not forcing their state religion on anyone.
Appreciate you taking the time to type all that.
Thank you!
