Historical Introduction to the Fall of Constantinople
By Protopresbyter Fr. George Metallinos
By Protopresbyter Fr. George Metallinos
It is always welcome and comforting to see texts that give Greeks an opportunity to recall the great moments of their historical journey. Especially in our time, where the new globalization, emerging through purely materialistic, authoritarian and plutocratic visions, pushes centuries-old traditions of faith and spiritual culture into the background.
This elegant volume, with its vibrant concise description of the story and its sensitive illustration, raises a voice of rebaptism to this memory.
We believe it would be appropriate to provide a rough record of the historical context within which the conditions were created that ultimately led to the "taking of the City".
The fall of the City in 1453 did not come unexpectedly, nor did it mark the beginning of the Ottoman Empire. The mistakes and weaknesses of the "Byzantine" society, but also its internal ideological and economic divisions, allowed the spread first of the Turkish-Seljuk and then of the Turkish-Ottoman element in Asia Minor and the rest of the Balkans and finally the creation of the powerful and threatening Ottoman Empire for the Christian world. However, on May 29, 1453, a large part of Romania, which had been divided since 1204, was already under the Ottomans, the Arabs and the Venetians. Since 1204, the City had not been able to regain its former strength and everything showed that it was heading towards its final decline. The Frankish blow against it was so strong that by the 13th century, the Queen City, as it was rightly said (by Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler), was “doomed to perish”.
The fall of the City in 1453 marked the official beginning of the Ottoman Empire and was the culmination of a long-term disintegration of the political and economic existence of the Nation. Since the 13th century, the "Byzantine" populations had been divided and split for the most part among foreign tyrants. The subsequent penetrations of mercenaries into the army and of foreigners into the administrative machinery of "Byzantium"/Romania weakened its ethnological cohesion. The civil wars, moreover, (1321-1328, 1341-1355) and internal anarchy intensified the demographic contraction. The other Orthodox peoples of the Balkans also presented a similar division. Serious mistakes in the economic policy of the emperors, such as the continuous increase of large property at the expense of small ones, who were pressured by unbearable taxation, the abusive expansion of the institution of "pronoia" and the often exaggerated increase in monastic estates, created an economic oligarchy at the expense of the small farmers of the land, leading to the economic crisis. Trade had fallen into the hands of the West and the possibilities for economic recovery were significantly limited. However, there were also spiritual causes of the fall.
Religious, social and ideological contradictions caused deep confusion, which acted as a disintegrator in the body of the empire. In particular, Western influences and the continuous concessions of the politicians to papal demands, for the expected military aid, led to spiritual deterioration, with a direct risk of loss of the spiritual and cultural identity of the Nation. Because, if "Byzantium"/Romania ceased to maintain its spiritual and cultural uniqueness, even if it did not fall into the hands of the Ottomans, it would disintegrate internally, transforming into a spiritual and political protectorate of some Western Power.
According to the Anti-Unionists, the fall came as salvation, because it preserved the spiritual and cultural purity and cohesion of the Nation, which in slavery was able to regroup and survive. After all, the structure and religious conditions of the Ottoman Empire (sacred law and the institution of the millets) enabled the "Nation of the Romans" (Rum), that is, the Orthodox Christian peoples of the Empire, to develop as an organized society within the boundaries of the "national jurisdiction" of the Church, continuing its historical way of existence, along with its identity, within the broad family, the ecclesiastical body. It is a fact that the post-fall History of the Greek Nation and the other peoples of the Balkans is essentially the history of the Greek Church, as an ethnoarchic body.
The event of the fall of the Empire was of enormous importance first of all for its Orthodox populations and their subsequent course. The fall was a crucial moment in their history, marking a period of long trial, with their economic and political powers reduced. If the psychic and spiritual powers were not vigorous, it is doubtful whether the Orthodox peoples could have overcome the consequences of the fall, as happened to other peoples in history. The loss, especially, of Constantinople, was a very important event. The City was the embodiment of all the hopes of the Romans (Orthodox) and especially of the Greeks. The preservation of its freedom, despite the great shrinkage of the empire, nourished their self-confidence and preserved their psyche.
But for the Ottomans, the fall was also of great importance. This legitimized their victory over the Greeks and other peoples of the "Byzantine" empire, which with the capture of Constantinople also became formally Ottoman. The conquest of the remaining Roman territories (Trebizond, most of Greece) was nothing more than the completion of the substitution of the Greeks by the Ottomans in our empire. The important thing, however, is that the once barbaric Turkish race of the Ottomans was able to form a powerful empire in a short time and marginally integrate into the system of European states, constituting a more open threat to the rest of Europe.
The gradual rediscovery of the rhythms of the collective life of the Nation was the fruit of the optimistic disposition of the dynamic collective spirit, which the Pontic muse lyrically captured: "Romania, even if it has passed, blooms and brings something else."
Source: Foreword to the booklet by Photios Konoglou titled The Taking of the City. Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
