The Fall of Constantinople 1453 (Canto Classics) Reprint Edition

This book has a lot of weaknesses. As of this writing, it is over 50 years old, and many of the "modern works" cited date from when the Ottoman Empire still existed. The author makes a number of unusual writing choices - at times he references "the Arab caliphate" - you know, the one-and-only! On page 58 there is a rather long and unusual description of the Sultan's physical features: "He was handsome, of middle height but strongly built. He face was dominated by a pair of piercing eyes, under arched eyebrows, and a thin hooked nose that curved over a mouth with full red lips. In later life his features reminded men of a parrot about to eat ripe cherries." My personal favorite is from page 78, describing a cannon-ball fired from one of the Sultan's guns: "The length of its barrel was 40 spans, that is, 26 ft and 8 in. The reverberation was heard for a hundred stadia, and the ball hurtled itself in the air for a mile, then buried itself 6 ft deep in the earth." Ah, yes, because we all know how long a stadium is!Steven Runciman is writing History with a capital H, and is completly allergic to things like explanations, or citations, or actually quoting primary sources. On pages 128 and 130 he describes the Sultan's and the Emperor's rallying speeches to their men on the day of the last battle - it would have been nice if either of those page-long parphrases had been replaced with the actual speeches, or at least quotes. On page 79 the author writes about the omens surrounding a possible conquest of Constantinople, with quotes taken from "the Tradition" of Islam - you know, hadiths have actual citations too, Sir Runciman. On page 75 the author almost approaches something resembling historical methodology by talking about the different figures given for the size of the Turkish army - but then declares the (unnamed and uncited) Italian accounts more reliable with no explanation whatsoever.The most egregious example is from pages 20 and 21, where the author explains why many Greeks were reluctant to accept Union with Rome. "But there were many thoughtful statesmen who also doubted the benefits of union. Many calculated, with reason, that the West would never be willing or able to send help . . . A few statesmen looked further ahead. Byzantium . . . was doomed. The only chance of reuniting the Greek Church and with the Greek people might well like in accepting Turkish bondage . . . Only thus might it be possible to reconstitute the Orthodox Greek nation and so revive it that in time it might regain enough strength to throw off the infidel yoke and recreate Byzantium. Greek integrity might well be better preserved by a united people under Moslem rule than by a fragment attached to the rim of the Western world."This is an absolutely fascinating argument. But who the hell are these thoughtful statesmen? Sir Runciman never bothers to cite them, never bothers to name his sources, never even bothers to name the apparently numerous people who had the foresight to predict the Greek Independence War and the Megali Idea centuries in the future. I have no idea if what he is saying has any basis in the contemporary reality or if it is just the imposition of a 20th century Byzantine fanboy because a Cambridge historian places no value on actually producing evidence for anything that he says.So if I have so many criticisms, why do I give the book 4 stars? My praise is short and simple - the writing is good. This might be deeply flawed historical method, but it is accurate enough, and is utterly brilliant writing. I will read this book again, because Runciman's History with a capital H is a first-rate story. If you are totally new to Byzantine history, do not start with this book because you will be unable to piece apart all the unexplained bits that Runciman loves. But if you have a passing familiarity with the context and want to read an awesome book about political drama, treason and betrayal, naval battles, desperate sieges, huge walls, Greek fire, and 1000-lb cannon balls, give this book a shot.

Sir Steven Runciman had an unique talent for conveying historical information with a flair. He did not convey history as a collection of unrelated facts to dates but instead provided all the color and nuances behind those facts and dates which gave them life. Only a few historians write in a way that transports the reader to the subject time, place, and people the way Sir Runciman has in this little volume.The book is organized by describing the background and focusing on the last Emperor and Sultan Mehmet II as the key individuals in that background. It continues with a description of the weaknesses that prevented the west from providing efficacious help to Constantinople. Attention then turns to the siege and fall followed by an overview of the exodus of learned Byzantines to the west which helped to spark the renaissance.A map of Constantinople and a pictorial depiction of the disposition of troops during the siege provides some detail for context. I would have liked more maps of the other geographical areas mentioned to provide the greater world context and that is my single critical point on this volume.That so much information could be conveyed in so few pages with such brilliant flair is testament to his reputation. This is still the definitive work on the last years of Constantinople and the final fall of the Byzantine empire. It is a must have for ancient history libraries and a must read for historians wishing to communicate historical lessons in writing.

The writer takes you back to the late decades of an empire that carried forth the banner and legacy of Imperial Rome. Far from the vast and immensely wealthy empire of Justinian or Constantine; it has weathered centuries of stagnation, infighting, and attacks from every front, and is now little more than a rump of a state no more than a few dozen miles in length, with an archipelago of small Greek tributary realms. A new Islamic power will soon subsume it, and bring an end to a nearly millennium long epoch.

Even after his death, Steven Runciman's works on the medieval Greeks and the Orthodox Church remain the standard for student seeking general information and for non-scholars seeking knowledge.As with all his works, The Fall of Constantinople is both well researched, but more importantly, well written. He provides enough background on the decline of the Eastern Empire and the rise of the Ottoman Turks to place the fall in proper perspective. The Eastern Empire in 1453 was a mere shadow of its once glorious self. The conspiracies and plots between Emperors, Patriarchs, Popes and Kings, ultimately, between Eastern and Western Christendom doomed the heir to the Caesars.Runciman's wonderful writing makes this come alive. He does not, like many historians, feel that a dry recitation of the facts alone is enough. Rather, his history reads almost like a novel. The characters have depth and emotion. The last Emperor is shown as a shrewd many trying desperately to save his people, even to the point of entering into an unpopular union with the Roman Church. The Sultan is no mere cartoon villain as often portrayed in medieval Europe or a politically correct Third World leader (as might be portrayed today) but rather a ruthless, though driven young man, determined to fulfill the goal of 8 centuries of Moslem leaders - the capture of "The City."And as the story winds toward its inevitable conclusion, you root for the heroes and mourn their deaths.Constantinople fell not because the Ottomans were the strongest empire in the world. Rather, it fell because the petty jealousies of the Western leaders made the defense of Constantinople impossible. Today, as the West finds itself again under attack, we should keep heed of our history, and avoid allowing our jealousies to cause another Fall of Constantinople.

This is an excellent account of the events that lead to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Runciman is an excellent historian, who makes you re-live through those dark hours in every detail. It is almost like reading a thriller and worry about the end, even if you know the sad end beforehand. I strongly recommend it to anyone with an interest in history.

Ordered this book which by the way is brilliant. Excellent, speedy delivery.Unfortunately I found I had got an earlier1991/1992 reprint tucked away in my library.Asked to return it. No problem. So generous..

What a great book! It really immerses you into the 14th and 15th centuries and keeps you absorbed for days. Feels like a novel, although it is non fiction. Quite accurate, beautiful language, nice little book. I never thought I would be so interested by just the fall of Constantinople (as opposed to the history of an entire era spanning a few centuries). Must read!

A well written account of a key landmark in modern civilisation - the end of the Byzantine empire. In 1453 the Turks finally extinguished the Byzantine empire (barring Trebizond, which followed soon after) created by the emperor Constantine in around 330AD in his new capital of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). The Byzantines always thought of themselves as Romans, despite being essentially Greek,as their empire was effectively that of the Romans, displaced to the East before the fall of Rome in about 450AD. By the end in 1453, Byzantium was little more than a city state. A fascinating story. Byzantium survived for over a thousand years and perpetuated art and learning through many centuries in which the West was effectively run by warlike tribes.

A fascinating, complex story which is well told and which still stands up to scrutiny.