The Battle and Fall of Constantinople, 1453. Islamic Turks Take the Invincible City, Age of Exploration Hastened.

This battle shattered the Byzantine Empire once and for all, flinging open Europe’s doors to the advancing tide of Islam. It was the moment the Ottoman Turks seized their mantle as the supreme Muslim power, a position they would hold, unchallenged, for nearly five centuries—until the dawn of the twentieth century.
Constantinople. February - March, 1453.
Turkish Ottoman Forces: 90,000 Soldiers.
Byzantine Forces: ~ 10,000 Soldiers.
Additional Reading and Research:

• Fuller, J.F.C. A Military History of the Western World.
• Norwich, John. Byzantium: The Decline and Fall.
• Runciman, Sir Steven. The Fall of constantinople - 1453.
• Antonucci, Michael. Siege Without Reprieve, Military History Magazine, April 1992.

Some Historical Notes:

1. Constantine the Great established Constantinople as his capital in 330, not 323. While Constantine began work on Constantinople in the 320s, the formal dedication of the city as his new capital occurred in 330 AD.
   While my depiction of Muhammad's rise during the weakness of the Byzantine and Persian Empires is broadly accurate, it’s important to note that Muhammad himself did not conquer Byzantine or Persian territories; that was the work of his successors, the Rashidun caliphs, particularly under the leadership of Abu Bakr, Umar, and their generals in the early Islamic conquests. These conquests began after Muhammad's death in 632 AD. I have multiple episodes on this that might interest any listeners.
   
2. The term “Arab merchants” and the fall of Constantinople. The Ottoman Turks, not Arabs, were the ones who conquered Constantinople in 1453, and they controlled trade in the eastern Mediterranean afterward. Arab merchants had dominated long-distance trade earlier in history, but after the rise of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottomans themselves held much of the control over trade.
   
3. Mohammed II vs. Mehmed II. Throughout my account, I refer to Sultan Mohammed II (also spelled Mehmed II) arriving at the walls of Constantinople in April 1453. Mohammed II, also known as Mehmed the Conqueror, the son of Murad II, are interchangeable.
   
4. Venetian fleet and the siege timing. The mention of a Venetian fleet arriving too late and turning back upon seeing the fall of the city is often debated among historians. While it's true that various European states, including Venice and Genoa, were slow to respond, the role and timing of any fleets arriving too late or turning back isn't well-documented with clear evidence. It’s a compelling image, but historians still debate this. Some ships did manage to break the blockade earlier in the siege, but the idea of a "rescue fleet" arriving right at the moment of the city's fall is not confirmed by all sources.
   
5. Martin Luther and the Reformation connection. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 was indeed a seismic event that affected European politics, religion, and culture, but the link between this event and Martin Luther's Reformation in 1517 is more indirect. While the Eastern Orthodox Church’s survival under Ottoman rule certainly had an impact on European religious dynamics, Luther's movement was more directly a reaction to the abuses and practices of the Roman Catholic Church in the early 16th century, rather than a direct result of the fall of Constantinople.
   
6. The Hagia Sophia’s conversion timeline. I said that within a week of the fall, the Hagia Sophia was hosting Muslim services. In fact, Mehmed II ordered the conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque almost immediately after the city's capture, though Muslim sources state that "within a week" regular services began.

Did we get something wrong/right? Send us a text message!