Romaioi and Teukroi, Hellenes and Barbaroi, Europe and Asia: Mehmed the Conqueror Kayser-i Rum and Sultan al-barrayn wa-l-bahrayn

Mehmed the Conqueror devised "historical" and ideological justifications for his conquest of Constantinople.


Bookmark and Share

Romaioi and Teukroi, Hellenes and Barbaroi, Europe and Asia: Mehmed the Conqueror—Kayser-i Rum and Sulţān al-barrayn wa-l-bahrayn

In the late summer of 1462, nine years after the conquest of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror visited “the ruins of Ilion and the traces of ancient Troy” on his way to the island of Lesbos.[2] He was interested in “the tombs of the heroes Achilles and Ajax,” as the “vir doctus et Imbriota nobilis Hermodorus Michael Critobulus” relates in his History , [3] which he had written before 1466. Kritoboulos continues that Mehmed praised the heroes of Antiquity for having found the poet Homer as their panegyrist (Kritoboulos himself obviously could not come up to these expectations).Mehmed evidently imitated Alexander the Great, who visited the tomb of Achilles and exclaimed: “O Achilles, as a great man you have found a great herald in Homer!” [4] But then the sultan’s speech changed to politics and turned out to be a statement on his ideology and his own role in history:
God has reserved for me, through so long a period of years, the right to avenge this city and its inhabitants. For I have subdued their enemies and have plundered their cities and made them the ‘spoils of the Mysians.’ [5] It was the Hellenes and Macedonians and Thessalians and Peloponnesians who ravaged this place in the past, and whose descendants have now, after a long period of years, through my efforts paid the just penalty for their injustice to us Asiatics at that time and so often in subsequent times.[6]
This statement is interesting in many respects and raises a variety of questions.[7] Let us have a look at some of them, which are related to the topic of this paper.

Revenge and Punishment for Deeds in the Past

Why can the conquest of Byzantium and especially of Constantinople be interpreted as a punishment? Similarily to other religions which developed an eschatology, the Jews, Christians and Muslims believed that misfortunes of all kinds had to be interpreted as a divine punishment for sins.[8] Prominent examples in Byzantine history are contemporary descriptions of the Nika riot [9] or the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204 [10] and later Byzantine failures in political relations to the Western states.[11] The interpretation of the Ottoman triumph over Byzantium in 1453 as a punishment that was sent from God is confirmed by many sources. The general opinion of Byzantine historians and other contemporaries was indeed that God allowed the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 as a punishment, although we observe a certain variety in the sort of sins they were supposed to have committed.[12] The historian Doucas, for example, believed that their greatest sin was to break their oaths in favor of the union of the churches, which they gave at the Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438/9), [13] whereas for Laonicus Chalcocondyles it was indeed the fall of Troy to the Greeks, a pre-Christian Hellenic outrage, which was avenged through the siege and sack of Constantinople by the Turks.[14] According to Kritoboulos [15] this last sack was more terrible than those of Troy by the Greeks (1209/8 BC?[16] ), of Babylon by the Assyrians (689 BC), of Rome by the Gauls (387 BC), of Carthage by the Romans (146 BC) and of Jerusalem by the Romans (70 AD).Chalkokondyles’ and Kritoboulos’ interpretation is supported by Nestore Iskender, an eye-witn ess of the conquest, who tells that Mehmed “exterminated the exterminators of magnificent Troy.” [17]

From where did Mehmed take the idea of justifying or explaining his deeds through the stories of a mythical past?We know that the sultan was interested in history; Kritoboulos tells us a trustworthy account of Mehmed’s visit to Athens in 1458: [18]
He was greatly enamored of that city and of the wonders in it, for he had heard many fine things about the wisdom and virtues, and of the many wonderful deeds they had done in their times when they fought against both Greeks and barbarians. So he was eager to see the city and learn the story of it and of all its buildings, especially the Acropolis itself, and of the places where those heroes had carried on the government and accomplished those things. He desired to learn of every other locality in the region, of its present condition, and also of the facts about the sea near by it, its harbors, its arsenals, and, in short, everything. He saw it and was amazed, and he praised it, and especially the Acropolis as he went up into it. From the ruins and the remains, he reconstructed mentally the ancient buildings, being a wise man and a Philhellene and as a great king, and he conjectured how they must have been originally. He noted with pleasure the respect of the inhabitants of the city for their ancestors, and he rewarded them in many ways. They received from him whatever they asked for.[19]
Going on a step further, however, we read what the real focus of Mehmed’s interests was:
When he … had under his power already the largest and best parts of both Asia and Europe, he did not believe that these were enough for him nor was he content with what he had: instead he immediately overran the whole world in his calculations and resolved to rule it in emulation of the Alexanders and Pompeys and Caesars and kings and generals of their sort … His physical power helped him well. His energies were keen for everything, and the power of his spirit gave him ability to rule and to be kingly. To this end also his wisdom aided, as well as his fine knowledge of all the doings of the ancients. For he studied all the writings of the Arabs and Persians, and whatever works of the Greeks had been translated into the language of the Arabs and Persians—I refer particularly to the works of the Peripatetics and Stoics. So he used the most important philosophies of the teachers of the Arabs and Persians.[20]

History Justifies Politics

Mehmed’s strong interest in history is confirmed by other contemporaries, but is also uncovered as not at all merely a theorist’s or classicist’s passion: an anonymous Ottoman chronicler, for example, reports the sultan’s special interest in the history of Constantinople.[21] From Mehmed’s Venetian doctor, Jacomo Langusto, we learn that the sultan “wanted to be informed about the situation of Italy and the places where Anchises arrived with Aeneas and Anthenor, where the sees of the pope and the emperor were, how many kingdoms existed in Europe, of which he possessed a painted map, with all its kingdoms and regions.” [22] Pseudo-George Sphrantzes describes another facet: “he always liked to read about the heroic deeds and lives of the Macedonian Alexander, Octavius Caesar, Constantine the Great, Flavius, and Theodosius the Spanish emperor of Constantinople, and he searched for ways to surpass them all.” [23]

In general one should have no illusions about the political intentions behind Mehmed’s cultural interests [24] —humanist ideas had no priority for him.Mehmed’s preference for Alexander the Great is confirmed by the Kievan cardinal Isidor [25] and by Western sources, for example Nicolaus Secundinos, who reports that the sultan had in his entourage an Arab with “excellent knowledge in his language” ( doctissimum lingua arabem ) and two doctors, “one of them having command of Latin, the other of Greek” ( quorum alter latine alter graece est eruditus ), who should inform him about history: “He chose to imitate particularly Alexander the Macedonian and Gaius Caesar, whose deeds he ordered to be translated into his language, because he took great pleasure in reading or hearing about them.” [26] A similar story may be found in the already-mentioned Jacomo Langusto: “Every day he got a companion of Ciriaco of Ancona and another Italian to read to him.He got them to read to him Laertius, Herodotus, Livy, Quintus Curtius, and chronicles about the popes, the emperors, the king of France, the Lombards.” [27]

Of course the sultan liked to hear flattery, such as: “The army of Alexander the Macedonian never was as big as yours,” [28] or that he was only the third after Alexander and Pompey, but in any case the greatest to pass the Taurus mountain range in arms as a warrior.[29] Of course he had read or listened to the famous Iskendernâme written by Ahmedî (d. Adrianople, 1413).[30] However, it is not astonishing that Mehmed did not like to be compared with the megas basileus Xerxes, as did many Western and some Greek sources, [31] because he prefered to be the victor in the end.

Let us, in parenthesis, touch upon the question of whether Mehmed knew foreign languages, in particular Greek: Some of the above-mentioned texts refer to translators or translations , and Kritoboulos also relates that George Amiroutzes’ (1400–1470) son translated Ptolemy’s Geographike Hyphegesis (a demanding, very specialized text) into Arabic for the sultan.[32] Cardinal Isidore, on the other hand, remembers that Mehmed listened every day to texts written “in Arabic, Greek and Latin,” [33] and Jacomo Langusto assures us that “he used three languages: Turkish, Greek and Slavonian.” [34] His command of Greek (and Latin) may not have been excellent, [35] but considering the information from the sources and the lack of explicitly negative evidence, I am inclined to believe that he had at least a basic knowledge of those languages, a hypothesis which also may be supported by the existence of a scriptorium that produced Greek manuscripts for the Sultan’s library in the sixties and seventies of the fifteenth century.[36]

Hellenes and Barbaroi

To return to the initial question: where are the roots of the construction of a “historical” and ideological justification within the category of “punishment” or “revenge”? The earliest classical authority is, of course, the already-mentioned Herodotus, whose history is built upon the archaic basic conflict between Greeks and barbarians. From the very beginning Herodotus declares the Trojan War a crucial historic event with long-lasting consequences:
from this time forward they had always considered the Hellenic race to be their enemy: for Asia and the Barbarian races which dwell there the Persians claim as belonging to them; but Europe and the Hellenic race they consider to be parted off from them. The Persians for their part say that things happened thus; and they conclude that the beginning of their quarrel with the Hellenes was on account of the taking of Ilion.[37]
Yet the immediate inspiration came probably not from Herodotus but from Arrian.In July 1453, the humanist Lauro Quirini wrote that Mehmed not only felt himself to be a new Alexander, but also that he read Arrian “almost every day.” [38] Arrian indeed expresses the aspect of revenge very clearly (and from Mehmed’s perspective doubtless provocatively):
But he (Alexander) said that he wished to take vengeance on the Persians, in retaliation for their deeds in the invasion of Greece, when they razed Athens to the ground and burnt down the temples. He also desired to punish the Persians for all the other injuries they had done the Greeks. But Alexander does not seem to me to have acted on this occasion with prudence; nor do I think that this was any retributive penalty at all on the ancient Persians.[39]
An important point of motivation for the rivalry between Asians and Greeks was for Mehmed the history of Aeneas, who after his flight from Troy arrived at Latium in the end and became progenitor of the Romans, a story that was definitely converted into the foundation myth of the Roman Empire by Virgil (d. 19 BC).As far as we know, it was already in the context of the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204 that this myth was used as a justification, indirectly by Nicetas Choniates accusing “those Aeneades ” of arson in revenge for Troy, [40] and directly by a French nobleman: “Troy belonged to our ancestors, and they who escaped thence came to dwell in that place from whence we are come; and because it belonged to our ancestors we are come hither to conquer lands!” [41]

Information about the histories of Aeneas and the foundation of Rome, which gave the sultan the historical argument for planning the “reconquista” of the Old Rome, was without doubt available also in Constantinople, since Maximos Planoudes (d. ca. 1305) had translated Ovid’s Metamorphoses into Greek.[42] In parenthesis I should mention that Mehmed’s siding with the Trojans was in some way already supported by the twelfth-century Byzantine writer Isaak Porphyrogennetos, who praises Hector as “the best strategist and the bravest of all the Trojans and the Greeks.” [43]

Skythai, Persai, Teukroi

Mehmed’s ideological construct was without doubt helped by the Byzantine identification of the Ottoman Turks with the Teukroi , the inhabitants of Homeric Ilion. This rested on the obvious similarity of their ethnic name to that of the descendants of Teucer, the legendary first king of Troas.Until the halosis the name “Teukroi” was only identified with the people of Troy, [44] but immediately after the conquest of Constantinople the new meaning can be found not only in Western sources [45] but also in the letters of the Greek humanist Michael Apostolius [46] (d. 1480).The sultan himself may have associated it with the fate of the Teukroi and of Aeneas in Planudes’ translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses , [47] with the help of his reader of Greek texts.

This identification is all the more remarkable in light of the Byzantine practice in past centuries of giving various Turkish tribes the names of the (former) inhabitants of those adjacent Asian or European regions from which they approached the frontiers of the Byzantine / Roman empire. Therefore earlier Byzantine historians often gave the name Skythai to those Turks who migrated along the northern Black Sea shore and reached Byzantine territories at the lower Danube.[48] Later, they used to call them Persai , because the Selçuk tribes were invading Byzantium from former Persian territories [49] and from Iraq.[50] (Therefore it is not at all a coincidence that Mehmed ordered the removal of Justinian's equestrian statue, which had been erected in 543/544 on a column in the Augusteum to mark the victory over the Persians, soon after the capture of Constantinople.[51] )

Hellenes in the Ecumene, Barbaroi in Asia (and elsewhere)

The ancient Greek historiographical ideology and mythology claims a superiority of Hellenes over barbarians of any sort.This fundamental design may already be found at Herodotus (who quotes Euripides: “Rightly the Greeks reign over the barbarians” [52] ), and is further developed in the writings of Aristotle, who argues that barbarians and Greeks
differ so much from each other as the soul from the body and the human being from the animal …, they are slaves by nature…. By nature he is a slave who participates in reason to the extent that he receives but not owns it.[53]
From Alexander the Great onwards, the Macedonians were also integrated step by step into this “community of superiority” of the Hellenes—as late as the end of the ninth century AD, the self-designation “Macedonian” served as an argument of legitimation for the imperial dynasty of Basil I (867–886), Leo VI the Wise (886–912) and their successors. The fact that they later, at the time of Leo’s son Constantine Porphyrogenitus (d. 959), claimed an Arsacid origin for their ancestors further expanded their imperial legitimation, because the latter were Christian rulers of Armenia who fought against the pagan Sasanian Empire of Persia.[54] These genealogical speculations probably were inspired by Basil’s spiritus rector and adviser, the Patriarch Photios.[55]

These barbarians, the Persians in (late) antiquity and the Turks in the late Middle Ages, had their roots outside the Roman Ecumene, in Asia, or to be more precise, in great Asia. This “great Asia” is defined in the Geography of Ptolemy, which was also to be found in the library of Mehmed.[56] Ptolemy makes a distinction between three parts of great Asia ( megale Asia ), the actual Asia ( ἰδίως Ἀσία ), [57] which is Asia Minor, and the adjacent ( ἐφεξῆς ) [58] and remotest parts ( ἔσχατα μέρη ), [59] the adjacent to be understood as Asian regions bordering the Roman Ecumene, which at his time in the second century AD, clearly included parts of Asia in the east of the subcontinent Asia Minor. Therefore Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century also identified megale Asia with parts of Asia outside his Ecumene: India, Ethiopia and Egypt.[60]

Barbaroi: Semantic Flexibility in Byzantium

The medieval Byzantine meaning of barbaroi was modified or extended according to the respective current (political) circumstances. It was a characteristic trait of the Byzantines that they had no problem with accumulating or combining their various identities—with being by faith Christians , in politics Romaioi and by culture Hellenes . Accordingly, we observe a flexibility in the usage of the term barbaros : any political enemy, not only a pagan, but also a Christian, could turn out to be barbaros , a single person as well as an entire tribe or nation.

A particular case was, during the Middle Ages, the Western nations which belonged ideologically and politically to the first Rome: at first, in the twelfth century, mainly the Normans of Sicily were so described, but after the Fourth Crusade and the “Latin” conquest of Constantinople in 1204, many other nations could be portrayed as barbaroi .Now, to quote only a few examples from the Greek sources, the archbishop of Athens, Michael Choniates, criticizes the “barbarically-speaking Italians, whose trust in Christ turned into a trust in gold,” as was the case with king Midas; [61] the patriarch Gregory II complains of the “barbaric Italians” who suppress the Greeks; [62] the historian George Pachymeres compares the Italians with the Alans and emphasizes their “blood lust.” [63] On the other hand, the emperor John Cantacuzenus makes a clear distinction between barbarians and Italians, though he also equates them indirectly by accusing them of the same crimes.[64]

A New Muslim Ecumene instead of the Old Roman Ecumene?

The political ideology of the Hellenes and the Hellenized Roman Empire also fascinated the “others.” The decade after the battle of Mantzikiert (1071), when the Seljuk leader Alp Arslan defeated the army of the Byzantine emperor Romanos IV Diogenes, opening Asia Minor to Turkish Landnahme , therefore represented a more decisive political shift than the ominous year 1204.[65] The fact that the first Turkish state in Asia Minor was called Sultanat of Rûm is not a mere coincidence; it was a decisive step towards the fulfilment of the totalitarian claim of Islam to rule over the Hellenized (and Christian) Roman Empire and its symbolic and real center, the Nea Rome , Constantinople. From a report to the Venetian Signoria we learn that
as the Turk himself said, God enabled the first Mohammed, the prophet, to give the law to the peoples, which he did in part, but that God had now given the order to him, the second Mohammed, to extend his law, which he wants to be brought to all the Christians and that he believes to be much mightier than Caesar, Alexander or any other ruler, who ever strived for world domination.[66]
Going far beyond the idea of Asiatic revenge against the Greeks, which was without doubt a useful means of propaganda, it was the Hellenic Roman-Christian Ecumene which the sultan wanted to overcome and to replace with an Islamic Ecumene (certainly centered upon his person, to be sure). Therefore he consistently pursued the idea of conquering not only the “daughter,” the second Rome, as prophesied by the Prophet Muhammad, [67] but also the “mother,” Rome itself:
To this he directed all thoughts, all considerations, upon this he concentrated all his efforts in the navy and in the infantry, trusting in certain vaticinations and prophecies, which promised him a reign over Italy and the capture of the city of Rome. He said that the heavens had granted him the see of Constantine, and this was Rome, whereas Constantinople could not be seen as equal and identical—as he had taken the daughter by force, so he could also take the mother.[68]
Mehmed’s field-marshals (not he himself!) spoke about “Holy War.” [69] What he strived after for himself was to conquer all lands adjacent to the Mediterranean, including Europe, [70] and to dominate the ancient Ecumene in imitation of the Byzantine emperor Justinian: “He said that only one world power, one faith, one monarchy should exist,” [71] and between 1453 and his early death in 1481 [72] many Europeans believed that he would succeed. Even his last enterprise (1480) indicated that, in his attempt to found his worldwide empire, he intended to invade Italy (including the “mother” Rome). It is not surprising that George of Trebizond was not sucessful, when he invited Mehmed to follow the example of Constantine the Great: to convert to the Christian faith and thus to attain world rule as a Roman emperor.[73] The sultan’s universal aspirations were continued by the rulers of the Sublime Porte through the reign of another admirer of Alexander the Great, Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), the “Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe” and worthy rival of the emperor Charles V (1520–1556, d. 1558).[74]

Perhaps also in an eschatological sense, Mehmed attached importance to being addressed by the title “Kayser-i Rum” (“Caesar of the Romans”) by Christian (European) rulers, [75] though as a Muslim he had assumed the title of “Hakan [or] Sulţān al-barrayn wa-l-bahrayn” (“Lord / Sultan of the two continents and the two seas,” i.e., the Asian and the European parts of the empire, and the White / Aegean and the Black Sea).[76] Combining these titles, Kritoboulos adresses him in the dedicatory letter of his history as “Supreme Emperor, King of Kings, Mehmet the Fortunate, the Victor, the Winner of Trophies, the Triumphant, the Invincible, Lord of Land and Sea by the Will of God,” thus imitating the intitulations of the late antique Roman emperors.[77]

Mehmed planned to convert the Nea Rome Constantinople into an ecumenic Muslim metropolis: a contemporary Armenian tradition claims that he adapted the name εἰς τὴν Πόλιν into Islambol (‘lots of Islam’) or Islambul (‘find Islam’).[78] This may be legendary, but there is no doubt about his intense efforts to repopulate the imperial city [79] and to redevelop it into his magnificent ecumenic capital.[80] At least two symbolic actions should be mentioned here: immediately after the conquest (May 29th, 1453), Mehmed converted the church of Hagia Sophia into the Great Mosque, [81] and in 1458 he built the first genuine Ottoman sanctuary in Constantinople, a memorial for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, the prophet Mohammed’s companion, outside the city walls at a high place that dominated Constantinople, not far from the location where Mehmed’s teacher Akşemseddin had found Abu Ayyub’s remains during the siege.[82]

A Last Question…

Why did Kritoboulos and other Byzantine Greeks, but also Western writers [83] of the fifteenth century (readily) support Mehmed’s aspirations to overcome the narrow tribal myths of the Ottoman Turks and to refer to—in fact inacceptable for Christians—Muslim prophecies? Why did they indirectly encourage the view that Mehmed’s victories gained an ecumenic historic dimension, which enforced the expansion of the Turkish identity to that of the transnational and ecumenic identity of Muslim heroes?[84] Why did the Byzantine Greeks and their European contemporaries depict Mehmed as an overwhelming and ingenious character and personality? This willingness to accept and explain Mehmed’s success may have emanated from a negative self-awareness, namely that the Western nations and their leaders knew that they had failed for a long time to organize an ecumenic, transnational and Christian defensive action against the Ottoman-Muslim conquest. Their behavior may have been an attempt to suppress the image of their own political and military failure. Likewise, the classical and multilingual education which they attributed to the sultan may have served the same purpose, because this could additionally demonstrate his supposed cultural superiority.

Demetrius Cydones had foreseen this situation as early as 1364, when he addressed an urgent and impressive warning to the leaders of the European nations not to abandon their joint efforts and the political unity of the Christians:
If [the Phrankoi] continue to help against the infidels only with words, not with deeds, the big city will be conquered … then they will be forced to fight against the barbarians in Italy and along the Rhine … and the nations around the Black Sea and the Bosporus and in Asia [Minor] will not accept that others in the West enjoy a comfortable life, whereas the East suffers subjugation, but they will support the barbarians against those who did not want to prevent the disaster though they could have done so … Therefore it is better to wage war on the Turks for the Polis “with us” than to fight in the future, much more endangered, against all.[85]
To return to the beginning: Some historians may highlight the resemblance of Mehmed the Conqueror’s statements to election manifestos and electoral addresses of present-day populist politicians; others could emphasize a conscious myth-making, initiated first of all by himself, but also by some members of his entourage. I think that both are part of the truth and that two aspects prevailed in his character: First, Mehmed was in his twenty-second year when he conquered Constantinople, and he was some ten years older when myth-making began. Therefore it is not astonishing that as a personality Alexander the Great, the young world conqueror, was his shining example and at the same time a challenge which he wanted to surpass in ruling over the pagan and Christian ecumene. Second, his name was also for him both obligation and challenge: although not personally religious, he nevertheless wanted to be a religious leader for the Muslims, a second Mohammed who brought the final victory of the true faith for the Ecumene.


Asutay-Effenberger, N., and U. Rehm, eds. 2009. Sultan Mehmet II.: Eroberer Konstantinopels—Patron der Künste. Cologne.

Babinger, F. 1959. Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit: Weltenstürmer einer Zeitenwende. Munich.

Bakırer, Ö. 2009. “Quellen und Dokumente zu Mehmet dem Eroberer als Patron der Architektur.” In Asutay-Effenberger and Rehm 2009, 41–57.

Barkhuizen, J. H. 1990. “Romanos and the Nika Riots: A Religious Perspective.” Ekklesiastikos Pharos, n.s., 1:30–39.

———. 1995. “Romanos Melodos: On Earthquakes and Fires.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 45:1–18.

Belke, K. Forthcoming. Bithynien und Hellespontos. Tabula Imperii Byzantini 13. Vienna.

Bodnar, E. W. 1960. Cyriacus of Ancona and Athens. Collection Latomus 43. Brussels.

Borsook, E. 1973. “The Travels of Bernardo Michelozzi and Bonsignore Bonsignori in the Levant (1497–98).” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36:145–197.

Canard, M. 1926. “Les expéditions des Arabes contre Constantinople dans l’histoire et dans la légende.” Journal Asiatique 208:61–121.

Catafygiotou Topping, E. 1978. “On Earthquakes and Fires: Romanos’ Encomium to Justinian.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 71:22–35.

Darkó, J., ed. 1922. Laonici Chalcocandylae historiarum demonstrationes. Budapest.

Delatte, A., ed. 1927. Anecdota Atheniensia. Vol. 1, Textes grecs inédits relatifs à l’histoire des religions. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’Université de Liège 36. Liège.

———. 1947. Les portulans grecs. Vol. 1. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’Université de Liège 107. Liège.

Durak, K. 2009. “Defining the ‘Turk’: Mechanisms of Establishing Contemporary Meaning in the Archaizing Language of the Byzantines.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 59:65–78.

Effenberger, A. 2008. “Zu den beiden Reiterstandbildern auf dem Tauros von Konstantinopel.” Millenium 5:261–297.

Eisener, R. 1987. Zwischen Faktum und Fiktion: eine Studie zum Umayyadenkalifen Sulaiman b. Abdalmalik und seinem Bild in den Quellen. Wiesbaden.

Eszer, A. K. 1969. Das abenteuerliche Leben des Johannes Laskaris Kalopheros: Forschungen zur Geschichte der ost-westlichen Beziehungen im 14. Jahrhundert. Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte des östlichen Europa 3. Wiesbaden.

Failler, A., ed. 2002. Le version brève des Relations Historiques de George Pachymérès. Vol. 2, Livres VII–XIII. Archives de l’Orient chrétien 18. Paris.

Fenster, E. 1968. Laudes Constantinopolitanae. Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 9. Munich.

Georgacas, D. J. 1947. “The Names of Constantinople.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 78:347–367.

Giese, F., ed. 1922. Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken [Tavārīh-i-al-ī-Otmān]. Vol. 1, Text und Variantenverzeichnis. Leipzig.

———, ed. 1925. Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken [Tavārīh-i-al-ī-Otmān]. Vol. 2, Übersetzung. Leipzig.

———, ed. 1929. Die altosmanische Chronik des ‘Ašikpašazāde auf Grund mehrerer neuentdeckter Handschriften. Leipzig.

Grecu, V., ed. 1958a. Michael Ducas: Istoria Turco-Bizantină. Scriptores Byzantini 1. Bucharest.

———, ed. 1958b. Laonicus Chalcocondyles: Expuneri istorice. Scriptores Byzantini 2. Bucharest.

———, ed. 1966. Georgius Sphrantzes: Memorii: 1400–1477; în anexă, Pseudo-Phrantzes, Macarie Mellisenos, Cronica: 1258–1481. Bucharest.

Heisenberg, A., ed. 1907. Nikolaos Mesarites: Die Palastrevolution des Johannes Komnenos. Würzburg.

Hinck, H., ed. 1873. Polemonis Declamationes quae exstant duae. Leipzig.

Hunger, H. 1990. “Athen in Byzanz: Traum und Realität.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 40:43–61.

Imber, C. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: The Structure of Power. Basingstoke.

İnalcık, H. 1969–1970. “The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24:229–249.

İnalcık, H., and R. Murphey, trans. 1978. The History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Tursun Beg. American Research Institute in Turkey Monographs 1. Minneapolis.

Isnenghi, L. 2006. “Ἡ Ἁλωση πριν την Ἁλωση. La conquista prima della Conquista.” In Constantinopla: 550 años de su caída [=Κωνσταντινούπολη: 550 χρόνια από την άλωση], ed. E. Motos Guirao and M. Morfakidis Filaktós, 2:19–28. 3 vols. Granada.

Jacobs, E. 1949. “Mehemmed II., der Eroberer, seine Beziehungen zur Renaissance und seine Büchersammlung.” Oriens 2:6–30.

Jacoby, F., ed. 1904. Das Marmor Parium [=The Chronicle of Paros]. Berlin.

Koder, J. 1977. “Der Schutzbrief des Papstes Innozenz III. für die Kirche Athens.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 26:129–141.

———. 1992. “‘Zeitenwenden’: zur Periodisierungsfrage aus byzantinischer Sicht.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84/85(2):409–422.

———. 1997. “Mazedonien in Quellen der Mazedonischen Dynastie.” In Synodia: Studia humanitatis Antonio Garzya septuagenario ab amicis atque discipulis dicata, ed. U. Criscuolo and R. Maisano, 541–549. Collectanea 15. Naples.

———. 2000. “Zu einigen Textstellen bei Johannes Skylitzes.” In Polypleuros Nous: Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, ed. C. Scholz and G. Makris, 106–112. Byzantinisches Archiv 19. Munich.

———. 2005. “Selektive Erinnerung bei Zeitzeugen: Berichte über die Eroberung Konstantinopels im Jahr 1204.” Wiener Humanistische Blätter 47:28–50.

Kolovou, F., ed. 2001. Michaelis Choniatae epistulae. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 41. Berlin.

Korać, D., and R. Radić. 2008. “Mehmed II ‘the Conqueror’ in Byzantine Short Chronicles and Old Serbian Annals, Inscriptions, and Genealogies.” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta [=Byzantine Studies] 45:289–300.

Koselleck, R. 1979. Vergangene Zukunft: zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt.

Kreiser, K. 2009. Istanbul: ein historischer Stadtführer. Munich.

Laiou, A. E. 2005a. “Byzantium and the Crusades in the Twelfth Century: Why Was the Fourth Crusade Late in Coming?” In Laiou 2005b, 17–40.

———, ed. 2005b. Urbs Capta: The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences [=La IVe Croisade et ses conséquences]. Réalités byzantines 10. Paris.

Lameere, W. 1937. La tradition manuscrite de la correspondance de Grégoire de Chypre, patriarche de Constantinople (1283–1289). Études de philologie, d’archéologie et d’histoire anciennes 2. Brussels.

Lauer, P., ed. 1924. Robert de Clari: La conquête de Constantinople. Les Classiques français du Moyen Âge 40. Paris.

Leone, P. A. M., ed. 1983. Nicephori Gregorae Epistulae. Vol. 2., Epistulas continens. Matino.

Loenertz, R.-J., ed. 1956. Démétrius Cydonès: Correspondance. Vol. 1. Studi e testi 186. Vatican City.

———, ed. 1960. Démétrius Cydonès: Correspondance. Vol. 2. Studi e testi 208. Vatican City.

Lolos, A., ed. 1976. Die Apokalypse des Ps.-Methodios. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 83. Meisenheim am Glan.

———. 1978. Die dritte und vierte Redaktion des Ps.-Methodios. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 94. Meisenheim am Glan.

Madden, T. F., ed. 2008. The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Perceptions: Papers from the Sixth Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 August 2004. Crusades, Subsidia 2. Aldershot.

Majoros, F., and B. Rill. 2002. Das Osmanische Reich (1300–1922): die Geschichte einer Großmacht. Augsburg.

Medvedev, I. P. 1999. “The Fall of Constantinople in Fifteenth-Century Greek and Italian Humanistic Writings.” Bysantinska Sällskapet, Bulletin 17:5–14.

Meier, M. 2003. Das andere Zeitalter Justinians: Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Hypomnemata 147. Göttingen.

Mercati, A. 1943. “Le due lettere di Giorgia da Trebisonda a Maometto II.” Orientalia Christiana periodica 9:65–99.

Möhring, H. 2000. Der Weltkaiser der Endzeit: Entstehung, Wandel und Wirkung einer tausendjährigen Weissagung. Mittelalter-Forschungen 3. Stuttgart.

Moravcsik, G., ed. 1967. Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 1 = Dumbarton Oaks Texts 1. Washington, DC.

Necipoğlu, G. 1992. “The Life of an Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia after Byzantium.” In Hagia Sophia from Justinian to the Present, ed. R. Mark and A. Ş. Çakmak, 195–225. Cambridge.

Noiret, H., ed. 1889. Lettres inédites de Michel Apostolis. Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 54. Paris.

Papadopoulou, T. 2009. “The Perception of the Ferrara-Florence Council in the Work of the Four Historiographers of the Fall.” Paper presented at the 5th Between Worlds conference, Cluj-Napoca.

Papathomopoulos, M., and I. Tsavare, eds. 2002. Ὀβιδίου περὶ μεταμορφώσεων: ὃ μετήνεγκεν ἐκ τῆς Λατίνων φωνῆς εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα Μάξιμος μοναχὸς ὁ Πλανούδης. Athens.

Patrinelis, C. G. 1972. “Mehmed II the Conqueror and his Presumed Knowledge of Greek and Latin.” Viator 2:349–354.

Perez Martin, I., ed. and trans. 2002. Miguel Ataliates [=Michael Attaleiates]: Historia. Nueva Roma 15. Madrid.

Pertusi, A., ed. 1952. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus: De thematibus. Studi e testi 160. Vatican City.

———, ed. 1976. La caduta di Costantinopoli. 2 vols. Florence.

———. 1977. “Le epistole storiche di Lauro Quirini sulla caduta di Costantinopoli e la potenza dei Turchi.” In Lauro Quirini umanista: studi e testi, ed. K. Krautter, 163–259. Civiltà veneziana, Saggi 23. Florence.

Philippides, M. 2007a. “The Fall of Constantinople 1453: Classical Comparisons and the Circle of Cardinal Isidore.” Viator 38:349–383.

———, ed. 2007b. Mehmed II the Conqueror and the Fall of the Franco-Byzantine Levant to the Ottoman Turks: Some Western Views and Testimonies. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 302. Tempe, AZ.

Piatti, P., ed. 2008. The Fourth Crusade Revisited: Atti della conferenza internazionale nell’ottavo centenario della IV crociata, 1204–2004: Andros, Grecia, 27–30 maggio 2004. Atti e documenti (Pontificio Comitato di scienze storiche) 25. Vatican City.

Pius, Papa II. 1551. Opera omnia quae exstant. Basel.

Podskalsky, G. 1972. Byzantinische Reichseschatologie: die Periodisierung der Weltgeschichte in den vier Großreichen (Daniel 2 und 7) und dem tausendjährigen Friedensreiche (Apok. 20): eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Munich.

Popović, M. 2010. Mara Branković: eine Frau zwischen dem christlichen und dem islamischen Kulturkreis im 15. Jahrhundert. Peleus: Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns 45. Mainz.

Raby, J. 1983. “Mehmed the Conqueror’s Greek Scriptorium.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 37:15–34.

———. 1987. “Mehmed the Conqueror and the Equestrian Statue of the Augustaion.” Illinois Classical Studies 12:305–313.

Reinink, G. J., ed. and trans. 1993. Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius. 2 vols. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 540–541. Leuven.

Reinsch, D. R. 1983. Critobuli Imbriotae Historiae. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 22. Berlin.

———. 2009. “Mehmet der Eroberer in der Darstellung der zeitgenössischen byzantinischen Geschichtsschreiber.” In Asutay-Effenberger and Rehm 2009, 15–30.

Rhoby, A. 2003. Reminiszenzen an antike Stätten in der mittel- und spätbyzantinischen Literatur: eine Untersuchung zur Antikenrezeption in Byzanz. Göttinger Studien zur Byzantinischen und Neugriechischen Philologie 1. Göttingen.

Riggs, C. T., trans. 1954. History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Kritovoulos. Princeton, NJ.

Rösch, G. 1978. Onoma basileias: Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in spätantiker und frühbyzantinischer Zeit. Byzantina Vindobonensia 10. Vienna.

Ross, W. D., ed. 1957. Aristotelis Politica. Oxford.

Schmitz, H. 1970. “Der Sultan und die Troianer.” In Sodalitas Florhofiana: Festgabe für Professor Heinz Haffter zum 65. Geburtstag am 1. Juni 1970, ed. J. Bregenzer and H. J. Schweizer, 135–153. Zurich.

Scholz, C. 1997. Graecia sacra: Studien zur Kultur des mittelalterlichen Griechenland im Spiegel hagiographischer Quellen. Studien und Texte zur Byzantinistik 3. Frankfurt.

Schmidt, M., ed. 1861. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Vol. 3. Jena.

Schmitt, W. O. 1968. “Lateinische Literatur in Byzanz: Die Übersetzungen des Maximos Planudes und die moderne Forschung.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 17:127–147.

Schreiner, P. 2009. “Die Epoche Mehmets des Eroberers in zeitgenössischen Quellen aus dem Patriarchat.” In Asutay-Effenberger and Rehm 2009, 31–40.

Schrott, R. 2008. Homers Heimat: der Kampf um Troia und seine realen Hintergründe. Munich.

Setton, K. M. 1978. The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571. Vol. 2, The Fifteenth Century. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 127. Philadelphia.

Smith, W., ed. 1870. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. 3 vols. Boston.

Sternbach, L., ed. 1963. Gnomologium Vaticanum e codice Vaticano Graeco 743. Texte und Kommentare 2. Berlin.

Stichel, R. 1982. Die römische Kaiserstatue am Ausgang der Antike: Untersuchungen zum plastischen Kaiserporträt seit Valentinian I., 364–375 n. Chr. Archaeologica 24. Rome.

———. 1988. “Zum Bronzekoloß Justinians I. vom Augusteion in Konstantinopel.” In Griechische und römische Statuetten und Großbronzen, ed. K. Gschwantler and A. Bernhard-Walcher, 130–136. Vienna.

Stone, E. N., trans. 1939. Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades. University of Washington Publications in the Social Sciences 10. Seattle.

Stückelberger, A., G. Graßhoff, et al., eds. 2006. Klaudios Ptolemaios: Handbuch der Geographie, griechisch-deutsch. 2 vols. Basel.

Suermann, H. 1985. Die geschichtstheologische Reaktion auf die einfallenden Muslime in der edessenischen Apokalyptik des 7. Jahrhunderts. European University Studies, Series XXIII, Theology, 256. Frankfurt.

Tabar, M. M. 1991. “La mosquée de Constantinople à l’époque byzantine d’après un manuscrit arabe (BN de Paris).” Byzantiaka 11:117–127.

Thorau, P. 2004. “Von Karl dem Großen zum Frieden von Zsitva Torok: zum Weltherrschaftsanspruch Sultan Mehmeds II. und dem Wiederaufleben des Zweikaiserproblems nach der Eroberung Konstantinopels.” Historische Zeitschrift 279:309–334.

———. 2007. “Konstantinopel—al-Qusṭanṭiniya: das zweite Rom als Mittelpunkt und Sinnbild des osmanischen Imperiums in der Herrscherideologie Mehmeds des Eroberers.” In Kaiser Konstantin der Große: historische Leistung und Rezeption in Europa, ed. K. M. Girardet, 149–161. Bonn.

Toumanoff, C. 1969. “The Third-Century Armenian Arsacids: A Chronological and Genealogical Commentary.” Revue des Études Arméniennes, n.s. 6:233–281.

Trapp, E., ed. 1966. Manuel II. Palaiologos: Dialoge mit einem “Perser.” Wiener Byzantinische Studien 2. Vienna.

van der Valk, M. 1976. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertintes. Vol. 2. Leiden.

van Dieten, J. L., ed. 1975. Nicetae Choniatae Historia. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 11.1–2. 2 vols. Berlin.

Yerasimos, S. 1990. La fondation de Constantinople et de Sainte-Sophie dans les traditions turques: légends d’empire. Bibliothèque de l’Institut Français d’études anatoliennes d’Istanbul 31. Paris.

Zgoll, C. 2005. “Geschichtsdeutung und Herrscherbild in Zeiten des Niedergangs: Demetrios Kydones über die Not des byzantinischen Reiches und Manuel II. Palaiologos.” In Geschehenes und Geschriebenes: Studien zu Ehren von Günther S. Henrich und Klaus-Peter Matschke, ed. S. Kolditz and R. Müller, 191–221. Leipzig.


Note 2
Babinger 1959; see also bibliography in Asutay-Effenberger and Rehm 2009.

Note 3
Ciriaco de’ Pizzicolli, who met Kritoboulos at Imbros in September 1444, describes him with these words, as cited in Setton 1978:87–88n22. Ciriaco may address Kritoboulos as Hermodorus in allusion to Hermodoros of Ephesos, who explained the Greek laws to the decemvirs in Rome and “thus assisted them in drawing up the laws of the Twelve Tables,” as in Smith 1870, s.v. “Hermodorus (of Ephesus).” See also the Suda , s.v.: Λόγοισιν Ἑρμόδωρος ἐμπορεύεται· ὁ Ἑρμόδωρος, ἀκροατὴς γενόμενος Πλάτωνι, τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ συντεθειμένους λόγους κομίζων εἰς Σικελίαν ἐπώλει .

Note 4
ὦ Ἀχιλλεῦ· ὡς [οὐ] μέγας ὢν μεγάλου κήρυκος ἔτυχες Ὁμήρου!” Sternbach 1963:35 (no. 78). Mehmed probably visited the so-called Achilleion (Beşiktepe) on the northwestern coast of the Troas.

Note 5
“spoils of the Mysians” ( Μυσῶν λείαν ): a proverbial saying known since Demosthenes ( De corona 72.2), often quoted in Byzantium and explained, for example, by Photius ( Lexicon , s.v.): Μυσῶν λείαν· παροιμία τίς ἔστι, λαβοῦσα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τῶν καταδραμόντων ἀστυγειτόνων τὲ καὶ ληστῶν τὴν Μυσίαν κατὰ τὴν Τηλέφου τοῦ βασιλέως ἀποδημίαν.

Note 6
Σημείωσαι ὡς ἱστόρησε τοὺς τάφους τῶν ἡρώων ὁ βασιλεὺς πορευόμενος διὰ τῆς Τροίας καὶ ὅπως ἐπῄνεσε καὶ ἐμακάρισεν αὐτούς·…καὶ ἀφικόμενος ἐς τὸ Ἴλιον κατεθεᾶτο τά τε ἐρείπια τούτου καὶ τὰ ἴχνη τῆς παλαιᾶς πόλεως Τροίας καὶ τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὴν θέσιν καὶ τὴν ἄλλην τῆς χώρας ἐπιτηδειότητα καὶ ὡς ἔκειτο γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης ἐν ἐπικαίρῳ, προσέτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἡρώων τοὺς τάφους ἱστόρει, Ἀχιλλέως τέ φημι καὶ Αἴαντος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ ἐπῄνεσε καὶ ἐμακάρισε τούτους τῆς τε μνήμης καὶ τῶν ἔργων καὶ ὅτι ἔτυχον ἐπαινέτου Ὁμήρου τοῦ ποιητοῦ· ὅτε λέγεται καὶ μικρὸν συγκινήσας τὴν κεφαλὴν εἰπεῖν· ἐμὲ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης καὶ τῶν αὐτῆς οἰκητόρων ἐν τοσούτοις περιόδοις ἐτῶν ἐκδικητὴν ἐταμιεύετο ὁ θεός· ἐχειρωσάμην γὰρ τοὺς τούτων ἐχθροὺς καὶ τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν ἐπόρθησα καὶ Μυσῶν λείαν τὰ τούτων πεποίημαι. Ἕλληνες γὰρ ἦσαν καὶ Μακεδόνες καὶ Θετταλοὶ καὶ Πελοποννήσιοι οἱ ταύτην πάλαι πορθήσαντες, ὧν οἱ ἀπόγονοι τοσούτοις ἐς ὕστερον περιόδοις ἐνιαυτῶν νῦν ἐμοὶ τὴν δίκην ἀπέτισαν διά τε τὴν τότε ἐς τοὺς Ἀσιανοὺς ἡμᾶς καὶ πολλάκις γενομένην ἐς ὕστερον ὕβριν αὐτῶν , in Reinsch 1983, 4.11.5; English translation from Riggs 1954:181–182, with minor changes. In fact, Mehmed possessed a manuscript of the Iliad , see Raby 1983, particularly the checklist on p. 29. Tursun Beg (İnalcık and Murphey 1978:49–50) does not mention Mehmed’s visit to Troy.

Note 7
See Babinger 1959:224-225 and Schmitz 1970. I would not doubt that Mehmed really visited the extensive and “most beautiful” ruins which at his time were identified with Troy and Ilion. The places where the Byzantines believed that Ilion and Troy were located (not Karatepe in Cilicia, as Schrott 2008 proposes) are under discussion. One possibility is ancient Sigeion near the mouth of the Skamandros river, another the ruins of Alexandreia Troas, which is mentioned as Troada in a portolan (Delatte 1947:243, l. 2). See the lemmata in Belke forthcoming. Some thirty years later, Bernardo Michelozzi and Bonsignore Bonsignori describe the sito bellissimo as follows (Borsook 1973:193; the description of Troy begins on p. 192):

Note 8
For the late Byzantine period see Zgoll 2005:202–204. A central text is Ps.-Methodius of Patara, see Lolos 1976, Lolos 1978, Reinink 1993, Suermann 1985, and Möhring, H. 2000.

Note 9
Romanos Melodos, hymn 54; see Catafygiotou Topping 1978, Barkhuizen 1990, Barkhuizen 1995, and Meier 2003, particularly 631–634.

Note 10
Bibliography in: Laiou 2005b, Madden 2008, Piatti 2008. See also Isnenghi 2006 and Koder 2005.

Note 11
One example: in the autumn of 1376 Demetrius Cydones mentions in a letter to John Lascaris Calopherus that no help is to be expected from the Roman Church and Western Christendom, because “as it seems, a demon or rather our own sins act against it” ( δαίμονός τινος, ὣς ἔοικεν, ἢ μᾶλλον τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων, ἀντιπραττόντων ), Loenertz 1960, ep. 167, l. 43–44.

Note 12
See Papadopoulou 2009, Reinsch 2009.

Note 13
Οἱ τοσοῦτοι ὅρκοι ἕνεκα τῆς συστάσεως καὶ ὁμονοίας τῶν χριστιανῶν, ἤγουν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ἡ ἐν τῷ Λουγδούνῳ γενομένη σύνοδος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ πρώτου Παλαιολόγου, ἡ ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ γενομένη σύνοδος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ ὑστάτου τῶν βασιλέων Παλαιολόγων, καὶ νῦν ἐν τῇ θείᾳ καὶ ἱερᾷ μυσταγωγίᾳ αὕτῃ οἱ γενόμενοι σὺν ἀφορισμοῖς ἀλύτοις ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματι τῆς Ἁγίας Τριάδος μέλλωσιν ἐξᾶραι τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν ἐκ γῆς καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς Πόλεως , Grecu 1958a, 36.6.8–14.

Note 14
Περὶ μὲν τοὺς τοῦ Βυζαντίου Ἕλληνας τοσαῦτα ἐγένετο· δοκεῖ δὲ ἡ ξυμφορὰ αὕτη μεγίστη τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην γενομένων ὑπερβαλέσθαι τῷ πάθει, καὶ τῇ τῶν Ἰλίου παραπλησίαν γεγονέναι, δίκην γενέσθαι τοῦ Ἰλίου ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων τοῖς Ἕλλησι < πασσυδὶ > ἀπολουμένοις, καὶ οὕτω τοὺς Ῥωμαίους οἴεσθαι ξυμβῆναι, τὴν τίσιν ἀφῖχθαι τοῖς Ἕλλησι τῆς πάλαι ποτὲ γενομένης Ἰλίου ξυμφορᾶς , Darkó 1922:166–167.

Note 15
Reinsch 1983, 1.68.4–8; see Rhoby 2003:153–157.

Note 16
Following Jacoby 1904:146–149 ad Chronicum Parium 38–39.

Note 17
“… distrusse i distruttori di Troia magnifica ,” quoted in Pertusi 1976, 1:296.

Note 18
Κατεῖχε γὰρ αὐτὸν ἔρως σφοδρὸς τῆς τε πόλεως ταύτης καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ θεαμάτων, ὅτι ἤκουσε πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ περί τε τῆς σοφίας καὶ φρονήσεως τῶν ἐνταῦθα προγεγονότων ἀνδρῶν καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἀνδρείας καὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ θαυμαστῶν ἔργων, ὧν ἐν τοῖς κατ’ αὐτοὺς καιροῖς ἐπεδείξαντο καὶ πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ πρὸς βαρβάρους ἀγωνιζόμενοι· καὶ ἐπεθύμει ἰδεῖν τε καὶ ἱστορῆσαι τήν τε πόλιν καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ταύτης οἰκοδομὰς καὶ δὴ καὶ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν αὐτὴν τούς τε τόπους, ἐν οἷς οἱ ἄνδρες ἐκεῖνοι ἐπολιτεύοντο καὶ ταῦτα ἔπραττον, καὶ τὴν ἄλλην πᾶσαν θέσιν τῆς χώρας τε καὶ κατάστασιν τῆς τε κατ’ αὐτὴν θαλάσσης καὶ τῶν λι μένων καὶ νεωρίων, καὶ περὶ πάντων ἁπλῶς. καὶ εἶδε καὶ ἐθαύμασε καὶ ἐπῄνεσε καὶ μάλιστά γε δὴ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἀναβὰς ἐς αὐτὴν ἀπό τε τῶν ἐρειπίων καὶ τῶν λειψάνων ὡς σοφός τε καὶ φιλέλλην καὶ μέγας βασιλεὺς τὰ ἀρχαῖα καὶ ἄρτια στοχαζόμενός τε καὶ τεκμαιρόμενος. τοὺς δέ γε οἰκήτορας ταύτης αἰδοῖ τῶν προγόνων φιλανθρώπως τε εἶδε καὶ ἐδωρήσατο πολυτρόπως, καὶ πάντων ὧν ᾔτησαν ἔτυχον παρ’ αὐτοῦ. τέσσαρας δὲ ἡμέρας αὐτοῦ διαγαγὼν…, Reinsch 1983, 3.9.5–7; English translation Riggs 1954:136–137. We cannot discuss here antiquam Atheniensis gloriam civitatis during the Middle Ages, but see Hunger 1990. Additional information may be found in: Fenster 1968:77 and 161–162, Rhoby 2003:89–90, Koder 1977, Koder 2000, and Scholz 1997:231–235.

Note 19
Laonicus Chalkokondyles 3.211 (see Darkó 1922) also relates that Mehmed admired the Acropolis; Tursun Beg (see İnalcık and Murphey 1978:43) does not mention Mehmed’s visit to Athens.

Note 20
καὶ τί γὰρ ἢ τὰ πλεῖστα καὶ κράτιστα τῆς Ἀσίας τε καὶ Εὐρώπης ἔχων ὑφ’ ἑαυτὸν οὐκ ἀποχρῆν ἐνόμισεν αὐτῷ ταῦτα οὐδὲ τοῖς παροῦσιν ἠγάπησεν, ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς πᾶσαν ἐπέτρεχε τὴν οἰκουμένην τῷ λογισμῷ καὶ τὴν ταύτης ἀρχὴν εἶχεν ἐν νῷ καὶ πρὸς Ἀλεξάνδρους ἑώρα καὶ Πομπηίους καὶ Καίσαρας καὶ τοὺς κατ’ ἐκείνους βασιλεῖς τε καὶ στρατηγούς.… εἶχε μὲν γὰρ καὶ τὴν φύσιν συνεργοῦσαν καλῶς τό τε δραστήριον αὐτῆς καὶ ὀξὺ περὶ πάντα καὶ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἄγαν ἀρχικὸν καὶ βασιλικόν, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο ἐνῆγον αὐτὸν ἥ τε σοφία καὶ τὸ πάντα τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν εἰδέναι καλῶς· ἤσκητο γὰρ ἐς ἄκρον πᾶσαν τὴν Ἀρράβων καὶ Περσῶν καὶ ὅση τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐς τὴν Ἀρράβων τε καὶ Περσῶν γλῶσσαν μεθερμηνεύθη, λέγω δὴ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Περιπάτου καὶ τῆς Στοᾶς, παιδευταῖς χρησάμενος Ἀρράβων τε καὶ Περσῶν τοῖς σπουδαιοτάτοις τε καὶ σοφοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα , Reinsch 1983, 1.5.1–2; English translation Riggs 1954:13–14.

Note 21
Giese 1922:74, Giese 1925:99–100, quoted after Thorau 2007:157.

Note 22
se informa del sito de Itallia, et de i luoghi doue capitono Anchise cum Enea et Anthenor, doue e la sede dil papa, del Imperator, quanti regni sono in Europa, la quale ha depenta cum li reami et provincie , Bodnar 1960:66.

Note 23
Ἀναγινώσκειν ἀεὶ ἠγάπα τά τε κατορθώματα καὶ βίους τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μακεδόνος καὶ τοῦ Ὀκταβίου Καίσαρος, Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ Μεγάλου τοῦ καὶ Φλαβίου καὶ Θεοδοσίου τοῦ ἐξ Ἱσπανίας βασιλέως Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, αἰτῶν καὶ ἐρευνῶν μηχανάς, ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ὑπερβῇ , Grecu 1966:232.

Note 24
Setton 1978:142n12 (with bibliography) offers an excellent short evaluation; his skepticism towards the positive image expressed by Jacobs 1949 is fully justified.

Note 25
See the detailed research at Philippides 2007a:356–366.

Note 26
Alexandrum Macedonem et C. Caesarem praecipue sibi imitandos delegit, quorum res gestas in linguam suam traduci effecit, in quibus legendis vel audiendis mirum delectatur in modum , Nicola Sagundino oratio 25.1.1454, as given in Pertusi 1976, 2:130/2.

Note 27
ogni di se fa lezer historie romane, et de altri da uno compagno d. o Chiriaco dAncona, et da uno altro Italo, da questi se fa lezer Laertio, Herodoto, Livio, Quinto Curtio, Cronice de i papi, de imperatori, de re die Franza, de Longobardi , Bodnar 1960:66.

Note 28
Ὁ στρατὸς τοῦ Μακεδόνος Ἀλεξάνδρου οὐχ ὑπῆρχε ποτὲ τοσοῦτος, ὡς τὸν σόν, οὐδὲ τοσαύτας παρασκευὰς ἐκεῖνος εἶχε , Ps.-Sphrantzes in Grecu 1966:410.

Note 29
Reinsch 1983, 4.4.3–5.

Note 30
Babinger 1959:546.

Note 31
For these Western comparisons see Philippides 2007a:366–375. Mehmed is not the first Ottoman ruler who remembered the history of war between the Greeks and Asians; Bayezid I is already said to have alluded to Xerxes, Alexander the Great and Darius III in a speech before the battle of Ankara (1402): βασιλεὺς δὲ Παιαζήτης λέγεται εἰπεῖν τάδε. «Τὸ πλῆθος ἔοικεν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ᾗ ἐγὼ τεκμαίρομαι, ὑμᾶς δεδίττεσθαι. ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο δὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἴστε, ὡς πλήθους οὐδὲν ὑγιές ἐστιν, ὅπου ἂν ἀρετὴ παραγένηται. ἴστε δὴ καὶ Ξέρξην τὸν Δαρείου, βασιλέα Περσῶν, πλήθη ὁπόσα ἀγόμενος καὶ ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην διαβὰς παρὰ βραχὺ ἐπῄει ἀποθανούμενος, εἰ μὴ Μαρδόνιος ὑποστὰς ἐπήμυνεν αὐτῷ τὸν ὄλεθρον ἐπανιόντι ἐς Σοῦσα. καὶ Ἀλέξανδρον ἴστε, ὡς Δαρείῳ μαχεσάμενος τήν τε βασιλείαν ἀφείλετο καὶ αὐτὸν ἀπέκτεινε , Grecu 1958b, 1:139, 143–144.

Note 32
Kritoboulos in Reinsch 1983, 5.10.5–8.

Note 33
arabice, graece et latine , quoted from Philippides 2007a:358n37.

Note 34
usa tre lengue turcho, greco, et schiavo , Bodnar 1960:66. The explanation for schiavo may have been not only that in the first half of the fifteenth century and during the reign of Mehmed, persons of Serbian origin were present at the Ottoman court, but also that he was on good terms with his stepmother Mara, daughter of Đurađ Branković, who could already have had contact with him before the death of Murad II in 1451. See Popović 2010:73–76.

Note 35
See Patrinelis 1972.

Note 36
See Raby 1983, who describes 15 still-existing manuscripts dated between ca. 1463 and ca. 1474.

Note 37
Τὴν γὰρ Ἀσίην καὶ τὰ ἐνοικέοντα ἔθνεα βάρβαρα οἰκηιοῦνται οἱ Πέρσαι, τὴν δὲ Εὐρώπην καὶ τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ἥγηνται κεχωρίσθαι. 5. Οὕτω μὲν Πέρσαι λέγουσι γενέσθαι, καὶ διὰ τὴν Ἰλίου ἅλωσιν εὑρίσκουσι σφίσι ἐοῦσαν τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἔχθρης τῆς ἐς τοὺς Ἕλληνας , Herodotus 1.4–5; English translation by Macaulay.

Note 38
Quam ob rem sese principem orbis terrarum gentiumque omnium id est alterum Alexandrum et esse et dici vult. Unde et Arianum, qui res gestas Alexandri diligentissime scripsit quotidie ferme legere consuevit , quoted at Philippides 2007a:359n40. Arrian’s Anabasis is still preserved in the Saray library in Istanbul, see Raby 1983:29 (“Checklist of Manuscripts”) and passim. For Lauro Quirini ( quotidie ferme ) see Pertusi 1977.

Note 39
ὁ δὲ [sc. Ἀλέξανδρος ] τιμωρήσασθαι ἐθέλειν Πέρσας ἔφασκεν ἀνθ’ ὧν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐλάσαντες τάς τε Ἀθήνας κατέσκαψαν καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐνέπρησαν, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα κακὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας εἰργάσαντο, ὑπὲρ τούτων δίκας λαβεῖν. ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ σὺν νῷ δρᾶσαι τοῦτό γε Ἀλέξανδρος οὐδὲ εἶναί τις αὕτη Περσῶν τῶν πάλαι τιμωρία , Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.12, English translation from Alexander the Great source archive,

Note 40
… εἶπον δ’ ἂν ὡς καὶ ἀντίποινα τοῦ τὴν Τροίαν ᾐθαλῶσθαι πυρὶ ταῖς σαῖς σχετλίως φρυκτευθέντι φιλότησιν οἱ Αἰνειάδαι οὗτοι πυρί σε κατέκριναν , van Dieten 1975:652.

Note 41
Troies fu a nos anchiseurs, et chil qui en escaperent si s'en vinrent manoir la dont nous sommes venu, et pour che que fu a nos anchiseurs, sommes nous chi venus conquerre tere , said the knight Pierre de Bracheur, when he was asked for the reasons for conquering Byzantium, see Lauer 1924:106; English translation from Stone 1939. Carolina Cupane, Vienna, kindly drew my attention to this source.

Note 42
Schmitt 1968:138–140. Half a century later, the historian Nicephorus Gregoras mentions in a letter to Maximos, abbot of Chortaitou in Thessalonica, that Aeneas came from Troy and took possesion of Italy and Rome, τὸ μέγα τῆς οἰκουμένης ὄνομα , Leone 1983, letter 21, l. 66–71.

Note 43
Ἕκτωρ, ὁ τοῦ Πριάμου καὶ τῆς Ἑκάβης υἱός, ὁ πάντων οἶμαι τῶν Τρώων καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων στρατηγικώτερός τε καὶ ἀνδρειότερος , Hinck 1873:87, l. 10–11. Cf. Hinck 1873:74–75, Porphyrogennetos’ critical words about Neoptolemos, the μιαιφόνος ‘murderer’ of Priam, who destroyed Troy. Mehmed probably did not know the work of Isaak Porphyrogennetos.

Note 44
See e.g. Schmidt 1861, s.v.: Τεῦκροι· οἱ Τρῶες, and ὄνομα τοῦτο ἐπιχώριον τοῖς Τρωσί, Τεῦκροι γὰρ οἱ Τρῶες , van der Valk 1976:581, l.15–16.

Note 45
Enea Silvio (=Pius II, pope 1458–1464) provides us with an early document: “ Video complures aetatis nostrae non auctores aut poetas duntaxat, verum etiam historicos eo errore teneri, ut Teucrorum nomine Turcas appellent ,” Pius II 1551:394.

Note 46
Noiret 1889, letters 16, 57, 63, 64, 73, 90, 105, 125.

Note 47
Ἐντεῦθεν, ἀναμνησθέντες οὗτοι τοὺς Τεύκρους ἐξ αἵματος τοῦ Τεύκρου τὴν ῥίζαν κατάγοντας, τῇ Κρήτῃ προσέσχον , Papathomopoulos and Tsavare 2002, 13.958.

Note 48
One example: Σκύθαις … τουτέστιν Ἀβάροις καὶ Τούρκοις , Ps.-Maurikios Strategikon 11.2 Pinax.

Note 49
Examples: Moravcsik 1967, 38.62: κατασκηνῶσαν τὸ προρρηθὲν ἔθνος τῶν Τούρκων πρὸς ἀνατολὴν εἰς τὰ τῆς Περσίδος μέρη μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ; Perez Martin 2002, 105.10–11: οἱ Πέρσαι (Τούρκους δὲ τούτους νυνὶ ὁ λόγος οἶδε καλεῖν) ; Heisenberg 1907:21, ὁ τὰ μεγάλα κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν ἰσχύων Πέρσης τὴν σήμερον . The emperor Manuel II’s “Dialogue with a Persian” may be a special case, because it is possible that Manuel’s Muslim opponent was indeed of Persian origin; see Trapp 1966.

Note 50
For other names see Durak 2009.

Note 51
The Turks believed that this statue (which was clothed like Achilles: τούτῳ δὴ τῷ ἵππῳ χαλκῆ ἐπιβέβηκε τοῦ βασιλέως εἰκὼν κολοσσῷ ἐμφερής. ἔσταλται δὲ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἡ εἰκών , Procopius, De Aedificiis 1.2.7) represented Constantine the Great. For discussion of Justinian’s column see Raby 1987, Effenberger 2008, Meier 2003:599–607; Stichel 1988. For equestrian statues in Constantinople see Stichel 1982, with bibliography.

Note 52
Iphigenia at Aulis 1400: βαρβάρων δ’ Ἕλληνας ἄρχειν εἰκός . See above.

Note 53
ὅσοι μὲν οὖν τοσοῦτον διεστᾶσιν ὅσον ψυχὴ σώματος καὶ ἄνθρωπος θηρίου …, οὗτοι μέν εἰσι φύσει δοῦλοι, … ἔστι γὰρ φύσει δοῦλος ὁ δυνάμενος ἄλλου εἶναι (διὸ καὶ ἄλλου ἐστίν), καὶ ὁ κοινωνῶν λόγου τοσοῦτον ὅσον αἰσθάνεσθαι ἀλλὰ μὴ ἔχειν , Ross’ 1957 edition of Aristotle Politics 1254b. Cf. Politics 1285a, διὰ γὰρ τὸ δουλικώτεροι εἶναι τὰ ἤθη φύσει οἱ μὲν βάρβαροι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν τῶν περὶ τὴν Εὐρώπην, ὑπομένουσι τὴν δεσποτικὴν ἀρχὴν οὐδὲν δυσχεραίνοντες , and 1252b: φασιν οἱ ποιηταὶ “βαρβάρων δ’ Ἕλληνας ἄρχειν εἰκός”, ὡς ταὐτὸ φύσει βάρβαρον καὶ δοῦλον ὄν . For the theoretical background see e.g. Koselleck 1979:218–220.

Note 54
αὐτοκράτωρ Βασίλειος ὡρμᾶτο μὲν ἐκ τῆς Μακεδόνων γῆς, τὸ δὲ γένος εἷλκεν ἐξ Ἀρμενίων ἔθνους Ἀρσακίων , Vita Basilii = Theophanes continuatus 5.2 (212 Bonn), see Koder 1997, and Toumanoff 1969.

Note 55
Cf. the excerpt from Arrian’s Parthika , Photius Bibliotheca Cod. 58 (esp. 17a) and Cod. 241 (324b): Βασιλεὺς μὲν δὴ Ἀρμενίας τότε ἦν Ἀρσάκης .

Note 56
For the tradition of Ptolemy see Stückelberger, Graßhoff et al. 2006, 1:27–30 and passim. The Codices Seraglienses 27 and 57 are not in the checklist of Raby 1983:29.

Note 57
Τῆς ἰδίως καλουμένης Ἀσίας θέσις , Stückelberger, Graßhoff et al. 2006, 2:484.

Note 58
Ἔκθεσις τῶν ἐφεξῆς μερῶν τῆς Μεγάλης Ἀσίας , Stückelberger, Graßhoff et al. 2006, 2:594.

Note 59
Ἔκθεσις τῶν ἐσχάτων μερῶν τῆς Μεγάλης Ἀσίας , Stückelberger, Graßhoff et al. 2006, 2:684.

Note 60
τὴν μεγάλην Ἀσίαν, ἐν ᾗ κατοικοῦσιν Ἰνδοὶ καὶ Αἰθίοπες καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι , Constantine Porphyrogenitus De thematibus Asia 1 (Pertusi 1952:60). We do not know if the emperor took this information, at least indirectly, from Ptolemy, because he did not mention him in his work. Strabo does not know the term. Perhaps he borrowed it from John Lydus, De ostentis 55.21, 57.25–26?

Note 61
καὶ βάλλ’ οὕτως, φίλη μοι κεφαλή, βαρβαροφώνους δὲ Ἰταλοὺς ἔα φθινύθειν, τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ λατρείαν εἰς χρυσολατρείαν μεταθεμένους καὶ παρασυμβληθέντας τοῖς χρυσωρυχοῦσι μύρμηξιν ὡς εἴθε καὶ Μίδου τοῦ Φρυγὸς τὰ κατ’ εὐχὴν ἀποτελέσματα τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καταλάβοιεν , Kolovou 2001, 148.30–34. See also Kolovou 2001, 93.15–16. ( Ἰταλοὺς, ὑπὲρ τὰς μυθικὰς Ἁρπυίας τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων τροφὴν ἁρπάζοντας ), and 146.22 ( βαρβάροις Ἰταλοῖς ).

Note 62
βαρβάροις ἔλαχεν ἰταλοῖς τὸ ἐκεῖσε δουλεύειν ἑλληνικόν , Lameere 1937:177.

Note 63
ἀνθρώποις βαρβάροις καὶ αἱμοχάροις ἐξ ἀδικίας; Ἰταλοὶ δὲ καὶ αὖθις ἐν ὑπερημερίαις διέτριβον τὸν καιρόν, πολλὰ ἀτάσθαλα (120) καὶ ἀθέμια πράττοντες, καὶ πρὸς Ἀλανοὺς εἰς διενέξεις ἀκαίρους ἐχώρουν, Failler 2002, 11.21.120; see also 11.31.5.

Note 64
Καὶ γὰρ οὐ βάρβαροι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἰταλοὶ …, John Kantakuzenos, Histories 1.196.

Note 65
For 1204 see Laiou 2005a. For the importance of 1071 see Koder 1992. See also the prophecy mentioned by Yerasimos 1990:133.

Note 66
è Maumetto, che esso Turcho dice che Dio dando el primo Maumetto propheta per dare la legge a popoli et che la de’ a una parte, ma che Dio à hora mandato lui secondo Maumetto per ampliare la sua legge, ala quale intende fare venire tutti i christiani. Et molto più potente essere li pare che Cesare, Alexandro o alcuno altro principe mai, quale abbia haspirato al dominio del mondo , Leonardo Benvolienti, report to the Signoria dated November 22nd, 1453 (Pertusi 1976, 2:109).

Note 67
Sultan Mehmed’s teacher Akşemseddin (died 1460) encouraged him to conquer Constantinople, quoting a hadith of the prophet Mohammed, who according to Ahmed ibn Hanbal (eighth to ninth century) had prophesied: “Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will he be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!” (Hakim, 4.422; also Bukhari, Tarikh as-Saghrir , 139, and Ibn Hanbal, 4.335). Another hadith saying that the conqueror of Constantinople would have the prophet’s name probably did not survive, but is only mentioned in the Kitāb al-uyūn . See Canard 1926:84 and 107, Eisener 1987:129n481–482.

Note 68
Ad haec omnes cogitationes, cuncta consilia dirigit, ad haec apparatus omnes copiasque maritimas et pedestres componit struitque, innixus vaticiniis et praedicationibus quibusdam quae sibi regnum Italiae et urbis Romae expugnationem promittunt; ait sibi concedi coelitus Constantini sedem, hanc vero Romam esse, non Constantinopolim videri aequum valdeque congruere, quasi filiam vi ceperit, hanc etiam matrem capere posse , Nicola Sagundino, oratio 25.1.1454 (Pertusi 1976, 2:132).

Note 69
İnalcık and Murphey 1978:43 and 55–56. Tursun Beg also gives him the title “Padishah of the World”; see İnalcık and Murphey 1978, facsimile folio 51r.

Note 70
For his “Weltherrschaftsanspruch” see Thorau 2007:154–157 and Thorau 2004.

Note 71
uno dice dover esser lo imperio del mundo, una fide, una monarchia , Jacopo de’ Languschi in the chronicle of Zorzo Dolfin, as cited in Setton 1978:257–258n23.

Note 72
For the short Ottoman occupation 1480–1481 of Otranto, see Majoros and Rill 2002:175–176.

Note 73
See Mercati 1943 and the bibliography at Möhring 200:344n237.

Note 74
Imber 2002:49–54.

Note 75
So an anonymous “Pamphlet contre Mahomet”: καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ στέργει νὰ λέν· τῶν Ῥωμαίων βασιλέα , Delatte 1927:353, l. 20–21. Cf. Podskalsky 1972:61–63. Tursun Beg (İnalcık and Murphey 1978:33) relates that Mehmed did not accept that the last Byzantine Emperor bore the title of Kayser-i Rum .

Note 76
Encyclopédie de l’Islam , nouvelle édition, s.v. “Sulṭān,” 886.

Note 77
Αὐτοκράτορι μεγίστῳ, βασιλεῖ βασιλέων Μεχεμέτει, εὐτυχεῖ, νικητῇ, τροπαιούχῳ, θριαμβευτῇ, ἀηττήτῳ, κυρίῳ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης θεοῦ θελήματι . For the intitulations (Latin equivalents: felix , victor , triumphator , invictus ) see Rösch 1978:43–47 and 168–171.

Note 78
İnalcık 1978:224, 234. See also Georgacas 1947:366–367.

Note 79
See İnalcık 1969–1970:229–249.

Note 80
Contemporary reports by Michael Kritoboulos (Reinsch 1983, 2.1–2, 10, 22 and 3.11–13), Ducas (Grecu 1958a, 42.3), and Aşıkpaşazade (Giese 1929:132–133). See Encyclopédie de l’Islam , nouvelle édition, s.v. “Istanbul” (particularly 234–242), Thorau 2007:152–154, and Bakırer 2009 with bibliography.

Note 81
Necipoğlu 1992. For the history of the mosque in Constantinople during the Byzantine period see Tabar 1991, with bibliography.

Note 82
The legend is reported by Evliyâ Celebi, here quoted after Kreiser 2009:183–184.

Note 83
See Medvedev 1999, Philippides 2007b, Schreiner 2009, Korać and Radić 2008.

Note 84
It is not coincidental that the conscripts of the Turkish army are still today nicknamed “Mehmetçik.”

Note 85
Loenertz 1956, ep. 93, l. 85–99: ἴσθι δὲ ὡς εἰ μηδὲ νῦν εἰς ἔργον ἄξουσι τὰς κατὰ τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀπειλὰς, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν τῷ ψηφίζεσθαι καὶ παρασκευάζεσθαι καὶ τοῦτο παρέλθοι τὸ ἔτος, ἁλώσεται μὲν ἡ μεγάλη Πόλις—τοῦτο γὰρ μόνον οὐχὶ φωνὴν αφιέντα διδάσκει τὰ πράγματα—κρατηθείσης δὲ ταύτης περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὸν Ῥῆνον ἀναγκασθήσονται πολεμεῖν τοῖς βαρβάροις. οὐκ ἐκεῖνοις δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσιν ὅσοι τὴν Μαιῶτιν καὶ τὴν Βόσπορον καὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν ὅλην οἰκοῦσιν. τῆς γὰρ βασιλεὶας ἁλούσης πάντες οὗτοι δουλεύσουσι τοὶς κρατήσουσι, καὶ οὐκ ἀγαπήσουσιν εἰ τῆς Ἀνατολῆς δουλευούσης ἄλλοι τρυφῷεν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἑσπέρας καθήμενοι, ἀλλ᾿ ἀμυνοῦνται μετὰ τῶν βαρβάρων τοὺς ἐξὸν τὰ δεινὰ κωλύειν μὴ βουληθέντας, καὶ πάντα ποιήσουσι ὥστε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν κἀκείνους δουλεύειν.… βέλτιον οὖν μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς Πόλεως πολεμῆσαι τοῖς Τούρκοις ἢ πρὸς πάντας ἐφεξῆς ἀγωνίζεσθαι, μᾶλλον δὲ κινδυνεύειν . See the commentary of Eszer 1969:207–212. The realism of this opinion is supported by the information of Tursun Beg (İnalcık and Murphey 1978:66) that after Sultan Bayezid’s conquest of Akkerman and Kilia in 1484 “Poland, Bohemia and Hungary were all fearful of the Ottoman advance and became concerned for the security of their countries.”