Chapter XXIX: Appendix: IV (2)

[143] _Liber Jurium_, xxii. 57, xxvi. 24, 26. Chalc. vi. Aeneas Silvius states that Eugenius, when he was informed of the treaty, wrote to Cardinal Julian that it was null as having been signed without the papal sanction; that he ordered Ladislaus to disregard it, and that he gave him absolution for so doing. At the same time, he directed the cardinal to do his best to renew the war, in order that the great preparations he had taken in hand might not be fruitless. The statement may be true, but it is difficult to believe that the report of the signature could have reached Rome and that his answer could have arrived to the cardinal before war was declared.

[144] The Turkish accounts agree that the crossing was at the Bosporus. Barletius, Book II. p. 38, with whom Leunclavius agrees, says: ‘Si vera est fama,’ merchant vessels transported the army over the Bosporus, receiving a gold coin per man. Bonfinius likewise gives this story of payment and says it was made to the Genoese. Lonicerus, p. 18, says the fleet crossed the Dardanelles. Ducas, whose account I have adopted, states that the fleet only crossed with great difficulty and against the will of the emperor. Chalcondylas makes the transit take place at Hieron, near the Dardanelles (Chalc. 135); one writer, at Asomaton. There is a church of the Asomatoi (the Bodiless, _i.e._ of Angels) at Arnaoutkeui still existing. See _The Constantiade_, where the Patriarch gives an account of it. Phrantzes identifies the position on the Bosporus (namely, opposite Anatolia-Hissar) by saying that it was near the narrow part of the Bosporus above the village of Asomaton or Arnaoutkeui: κατὰ τὸ στενὸν ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἀνωτέρου μέρους τῆς τῶν Ἀσωμάτων κώμης (Ph. ch. II. p. 223), which is conclusive as to the locality he wishes to indicate. Ducas also in several places gives the name of Hieron to the straits between Anatolia and Roumelia-Hissar. It is therefore clear that two places on the Bosporus were known as Hieron. The safest passage would be at the Hieron below the Giant’s Mountain.

[145] Callimachus.

[146] ‘Morbo detentus,’ Lonicerus, 18. Chalc. and others also mention his illness. He was suffering from an abscess in the thigh.

[147] On the opposite shore of the lagoon now runs the railway from Varna to Rustchuk.

[148] _Early Travels_, 361.

[149] _Early Travels_, 366.

[150] Chalc. p. 138. The account by Phrantzes, p. 198, of the interview between Hunyadi and the king is very well given.

[151] Bonfinius states that it was at this moment also that he unfurled the treaty of Szegedin.

[152] Leunclavius, 256.

[153] Eton’s _Travels_, p. 332.

[154] Gibbon adopts the statement of Chalcondylas (145) that Murad joined the dervishes after Varna, though on other matters regarding his life he relies upon Cantemir, who by implication discredits the story. Chalcondylas states that in the crisis of the battle of Varna, the sultan had vowed that if he were successful he would abdicate and join one of these religious orders. Von Hammer knows nothing of the story, and the whole course of Murad’s life is against the belief that ‘the lord of nations submitted to fast and pray and turn round in endless rotations with the fanatics who mistook the giddiness of the head for the illumination of the Spirit’ (Gibbon, VII. p. 140). Neither Phrantzes nor Ducas mentions his having become a dervish, as they probably would have done if the fact had been known to them. Indeed, the one point in favour of the story was unknown to Gibbon: namely, that some of the dervish sects are liberal or philosophical. They are all religious or pietistic, but many claim that their tenets are independent of Islam. Their explanation of the turning or dancing is that they first look towards Mecca and reflect, God is there; then they make a turn and reflect, He is there also; and so in the complete circle. It should be noted also that there are many dervishes who neither turn nor dance in their devotions. On the subject of the dervishes in Turkey, two useful books are _The Dervishes_, by J. P. Brown (London, 1868), and, better still, _Les Confréries Musulmanes_ par le R. P. Louis Petit, supérieur des Augustins de l’Assomption à Kadikeuy (Constantinople, 1899).

[155] Kroya or Croia, now called Ak-Hissar or the White Castle, is a few miles to the north of Durazzo and a short distance from the Adriatic.

[156] Aeneas Sylvius gives the number at 200,000; Chalcondylas at 15,000, which Von Hammer reasonably suggests is an error for 150,000.

[157] Bonfinius makes Murad state in a letter to Corinth that eight thousand Hungarians were left dead on the plain: a much more likely number.

[158] Von Hammer gives the numbers I have adopted.

[159] For the siege of Belgrade see a paper in the _English Historical Review_, 1892, by Mr. R. N. Bain.

[160] ‘Novit majestas imperatoria, Turcorum, Assyriorum, Aegyptiorum gentem: imbelles, inermes, effaeminati sunt, neque animo neque consilio martiales; sumenda erunt spolia sine sudore et sanguine.’ Oratio Romae habita anno 1452 de passagio Cruce signatorum contra Mahometanos suscipiendo. Edita apud Reynaldum [by Dr. Dethier].

[161] La Brocquière, 366.

[162] Θρῆνος, line 720.

[163] According to Scholarius and Manuel the Rhetorician, John shortly before his death declared against the Union. In such a matter, however, both these witnesses are suspect.

[164] La Brocquière, p. 341.

[165] _Ibid._ p. 340.

[166] La Brocquière, p. 339.

[167] Perhaps it could be contended successfully that the relaxing climate of Constantinople had much to do with the enervation of its population, and that every race which has possessed the city has suffered from the same cause.

[168] Mr. D. G. Hogarth in _The Nearer East_ (London, 1902), on pp. 280–1, speaks of the country as a ‘Debateable Land distracted internally by a ceaseless war of influences, and only too anxious to lean in one part or another on external aid.’... ‘Macedonia has been torn this way and that for half a century.’ The whole chapter on ‘World Relation’ is valuable and suggestive. The same diversity of interests and hostility arising from differences in race and religion is well brought out in the best recent book on _Turkey in Europe_, by Odysseus.

[169] The Turkish system of occupying conquered territories by military colonies and driving away the original inhabitants excited great opposition among the Serbians and led, says Von Ranke, to the struggle which ended in 1389 on the plains of Cossovo. (_History of Serbia_, Bohn’s edition, p. 16.)

[170] Cantacuzenus, iv. 8.

[171] The tradition of its destructiveness even in England, which it reached in 1348, and the panic-struck words of the Statutes which followed it, have, says J. R. Green, ‘been more than justified by modern researches. Of the three or four millions who then formed the population of England more than half were swept away by its repeated visitations’ (Green’s _Short History of the English People_), p. 241.

[172] According to one contemporary writer, Murad had to relinquish the siege of Constantinople in 1422 on account of the appearance of plague in his army (_Historia Epirotica_). Mahomet the Second, however, according to Critobulus, attributed the necessity of raising the siege to hostility within his own family, doubtless alluding to the rising already mentioned in Asia Minor. He says, in substance, ‘The city was almost in the hands of my father, and he would certainly have taken it by assault, if those of his own family in whom he had confidence had not worked secretly against him.’ Crit. xxv.

[173] _Travels and Researches in Asia Minor_, by Sir Charles Fellows. Professor Ramsay has also the same story to tell, though his own success in identifying lost cities has been exceptionally great.

[174] La Brocquière, 340–7.

[175] _Ibid._ 337.

[176] Compare this with Villehardouin’s statement that in 1204 Constantinople had ten times as many people as there were in Paris.

[177] Phrantzes, 241.

[178] Another version says from 30,000 to 36,000 men.

[179] P. 23. The ‘not more’ is from the edition of Dethier, p. 896. The version published in the _Chronique de Charles VII_ gives 25,000 to 30,000 armed men. Dethier’s omits ‘armed.’

[180] The Superior of the Franciscans says that 3,000 were killed on May 29 (Dethier’s _Documents relating to the Siege_, p. 940).

[181] Bikelas, _La Grèce Byzantine et Moderne_, p. 153. His essays express this opinion in many other places.

[182] ‘Les schismes sont chez eux [the Greeks] la conséquence du même esprit de tous les temps; c’est la théologie soumise au contrôle de l’intelligence pure, le dogme éprouvé par le mécanisme de leur logique brillante et rapide. Ces discussions théologiques, appliquées uniquement à la recherche de l’essence divine, à l’explication du fait divin, du mystère, prennent chez eux un caractère exclusivement scientifique.’ Montreuil, _Histoire du droit byzantin_, i. 418.

[183] Krumbacher, _Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur_, p. 219, says: ‘Kein Volk, die Chinesen vielleicht ausgenommen, besitzt eine so reiche historische Litteratur wie die Griechen. In ununterbrochener Reihenfolge geht die Überlieferung von Herodot bis auf Laonikos Chalkondylas. Die Griechen und Byzantiner haben die Chronik des Ostens über zwei Jahrtausende mit gewissenhafter Treue fortgeführt.’

[184] Rambaud, _L’empire de Grèce_, p. 367. Bikelas and Finlay make the same comparison.

[185] Constantine is usually called the Eleventh. Gibbon, however, counts the son of Romanus the First as Constantine the Eighth, and thus makes the last Emperor Constantine the Twelfth. He is often spoken of as Constantine Dragases, because his mother, Irene, belonged to a family of that name. She was a South Serbian princess.

[186] Phrantzes, p. 205, represents Constantine as crowned. Apparently this ceremony was not regarded as a definite coronation, and hence Ducas calls John the last Emperor.

[187] Constantine’s wife, Catherine Catalusio, died in 1442, after being married about ten months.

[188] Ducas, xxxv.

[189] As they were opposed in philosophy, so also were they on the great question before these Councils. Pletho insisted that the Union should be effected by the submission of the Greek Church to the Latin formula, while Scholarius endeavoured to frame a form of words which could be accepted by both parties. Had his advice been acted upon, it is possible that he and his companions would on their return to the capital have been able to persuade their countrymen to accept the Union in sincerity. For the life and writings of George Scholarius, afterwards the Patriarch Gennadius, see Krumbacher’s _Geschichte des Byzantinischen Litteratur_, p. 119, and works there quoted.

[190] The MS. of Critobulus was found in the Seraglio Library about thirty-five years ago by Dr. Dethier. It was published by Karl Müller with excellent notes. Dr. Dethier also prepared an edition with notes and documents relating to the siege, which were printed by the Academy of Buda-Pest but never published. Through the courtesy of the Council and of Dr. Arminius Vambéry I have been presented with copies. They are especially valuable for their topographical criticisms.

[191] Lonicerus, p. 22.

[192] M. Léon Cahun, in his introduction to the _History of the Turks and Mongols_, says: ‘L’Islamisme est une règle qu’on respecte et qu’on défend, mais qu’on ne se permettrait pas de discuter. Les Turcs ont toujours été trop inaccessibles au sentiment religieux pour jamais devenir hérétiques; ils sont les derniers des hommes capables de comprendre _Oportet haereses esse_. Ils ne demandent pas mieux que de croire, mais ils ne tiennent pas du tout à comprendre.’

[193] Phrantzes, i. 30.

[194] Von Hammer, note iii. p. 429.

[195] Ducas, p. 129; Chalcondylas says, ‘Peremit, cum, aqua infusa, spiritum ejus interclusisset;’ Montaldo, ‘fratre obtruncato.’

[196] Von Hammer, iii. 68.

[197] Zorzo Dolfin, p. 986.

[198] Orchan was the Turkish member of the house of Othman who still remained in Constantinople and was either the son or grandson of Suliman, brother of Mahomet I.

[199] Chal. vii.; Ducas, xxxiv.

[200] Ducas, xxxiv.

[201] Crit. vii.

[202] Crit. viii. The account given by Ducas represents the reply of the sultan as much more brutal. He dismissed the ambassadors with the remark that he would not have the question reopened; he was within his rights, and if they returned he would have them flayed alive.

[203] Phrantzes, p. 233; Ducas, xxxiv.; Crit. ix.

[204] Critobulus gives the width at seven stadia. It is really half a nautical mile. Probably it is unwise to suppose that Critobulus had any means of measuring it with any degree of accuracy, or the distance given by him would be very valuable as indicating what contemporary writers meant by a stadium. It is important, however, in reference to other statements of distance given by Critobulus which will be noted later.

[205] Ducas, xxxiv.

[206] Phrantzes, 234, and Barbaro, p. 2. Barbaro was a Venetian ship’s doctor who was in the city before and during the siege and who kept a diary which is simply invaluable, though for the part written day by day, internal evidence shows that it was subsequently revised after the siege. It was published in 1856.

[207] The speech of Mahomet, of which I have given the substance, can of course only be taken as a reproduction of what Critobulus had heard or possibly of what an intelligent writer who knew the Turks well thought it probable Mahomet would say. As such it is valuable. It is of course formed by Critobulus, following the example of the Greek Byzantine historians generally, on the model of those given by Thucydides and other classical authors.

[208] Barb. p. 14.

[209] Barb. p. 11.

[210] Barb., and Crit. ch. xxv.

[211] La Brocquière says this foss, on his visit, was two hundred paces long.

[212] Barbaro says that the emperor employed an Italian to place the boom in position.

[213] The present Tower of Galata was called the Tower of Christ. See Paspates, _Meletai_, p. 180.

[214] Barb. p. 25. Tetaldi states that there were nine galleys and thirty other ships (p. 25). The fact that the Turks soon found that it was impossible to take possession of the chain or to drive away the defending fleet tends to show that the Greek fleet was respectable in number of ships. On the other hand, when it became of extreme importance to send ships outside the chain to aid ships from Genoa coming to the relief of the city, the fact that none were sent out is evidence to show that no ships could be spared from the defence of the chain or that no sufficient number of galleys, triremes, or other vessels independent of wind for propulsion were at hand to take the offensive. There were probably many smaller merchant ships and boats of which no account was taken.

[215] The elder Mordtmann makes the suggestion that the Bashi-Bazouks are in this estimate excluded, and I agree with him. The same remark applies also to Philelphus who gives 60,000 foot and 20,000 horse. Other writers include all those who were present with Mahomet and thus make the number of the besiegers very much higher. Ducas’s estimate is 250,000; Montaldo’s, 240,000 (of whom 30,000 were cavalry, ch. xxvii.). Phrantzes states that 258,000 were present; Leonard the archbishop, with whom Critobulus and Thysellius agree, gives 300,000 men, while Chalcondylas increases this to 400,000.

[216] Tetaldi’s _Information de la prinse de Constantinoble_, p. 21.

[217] Leonard and others say 15,000, but the smaller estimate is in accord with many Turkish statements that the number of Janissaries was, until the time of Suliman, limited to 12,000.

[218] The connection between the Dervish order of Bektashis and the Janissaries endured as long as the Janissaries themselves, and when the latter were massacred, in June 1826, with the cry of ‘Hadji Bektash’ on their lips, the order of Bektashis was also suppressed. _Etat militaire Ottoman_, par Djavid Bey (Constantinople, 1881), and Walsh’s _Two Years in Constantinople_ (1828).

[219] Djevad, p. 55.

[220] Permission to marry was not granted to Janissaries till the time of Suliman, a century later.

[221] When, contemporaneously with the murder of the Janissaries in 1826, the Order of Bektashis was suppressed, Sultan Mahmoud assigned as a reason that jars of wine were found in the cellars of their convents stoppered with leaves of the Koran. The statement was probably false, but was intended to create the worst possible impression against the Bektashis.

[222] _Early Travels in Palestine_, p. 365. La Brocquière made a careful study of the Turkish methods of fighting and of how they might be defeated by a combination of European troops among which he would have placed from England a thousand men at arms and ten thousand archers. As his visit was in 1433, it is not improbable that Agincourt was in his mind.

[223] The Turks have rarely failed in obtaining able European soldiers. Moltke was in the Turkish service. The first Napoleon narrowly escaped taking a like service. (See Von Hammer.) More recently they have had in General Von der Golz one of the ablest German soldiers.

[224] Dethier suggests that the casting of the largest gun was done at Rhegium, the present Chemejie, about twelve miles from Constantinople, and that the transport spoken of by Ducas was either of smaller ones or of the brass required for the large one (p. 991; Dethier’s notes on Z. Dolfin).

[225] Phrantzes, p. 237, gives the arrival on April 2.

[226] Critobulus, xxix., gives the description of the construction of a cannon the barrel of which was forty spans or twenty-six feet eight inches long. The bronze of which it was cast was eight inches in thickness in the barrel. Throughout half the length its bore was of a diameter of thirty inches. Throughout the other half, which contained powder, the bore was only one third of that width. The σπιθαμὴ or _palmus_ or span was in the Middle Ages, says Du Cange, eight inches long. Two stone balls still existing at Top-Hana (that is, the Cannon Khan) are forty-six inches in diameter. These would answer the description of Tetaldi, that the ball reached to his waist. A great Turkish cannon which is now in the Artillery Museum at Woolwich weighs about nineteen tons. It was cast fifteen years after the siege of Constantinople and is an excellent specimen of the great cannon of the period (_Artillery; its Progress and Present Stage_, by Commander Lloyd and A. G. Hadcock, R.E., p. 19).

[227] Crit. xxi.

[228] Barbaro.

[229] Barbaro gives the arrival on April 12. Dr. Dethier maintains that Diplokionion was at Cabatash and that subsequently to the Conquest the people and the name were transferred to Beshiktash. Barbaro says it was two Italian miles, equal to one and a third English mile, from the city, which is in accord with Dethier’s view, but in presence of Bondelmonti’s map, drawn in 1422 and given in Banduri, showing the Two Columns, and of other evidence, it is difficult to credit Dethier’s statement.

[230] Phrantzes, p. 241; Ducas gives the total number as 300, Leonard as 250, Critobulus as 350. The independent accounts of two men who had been at sea, like the French soldier Tetaldi and the Venetian Barbaro, are not far apart. The first says there were 16 to 18 galleys, the second 12. The estimate of the long boats is 60 to 80 by Tetaldi, as against 70 to 80 by Barbaro; while the transport barges or parandaria are described by one as from 16 to 20, by the other as from 20 to 25. Chalcondylas (p. 158) states that 30 triremes and 200 smaller vessels arrived from Gallipoli. Leonard says that there were 6 triremes and 10 biremes.

[231] The following illustration shows the arrangement of the boats.

A.A.A.A. represent four rowlock ports, through each of which three oars pass, in the case of a trireme, pulled by three men on the seat marked with circles. It will be noticed that the second man sits a little forward of the first, and the third of the second.

[232] _Ancient Ships_, by Mr. Cecil Torr.

[233] I have been indebted to Yule’s valuable notes on Marco Polo for his researches on the construction of ships. Unfortunately, Mr. Cecil Torr’s monograph on _Ancient Ships_ (Cambridge, 1896) does not bring their history so late down as the fifteenth century. For the period of which it treats it is simply perfect.

[234] Crit. xxv.

[235] As may be seen from the note in the Appendix on the position of the St. Romanus Gate, I believe that when Top Capou, which beyond doubt had been known as the Gate of Saint Romanus, was closed, the Pempton was generally spoken of as the St. Romanus Gate. The Italians, who had the largest share in the defence in the Lycus valley, probably ignorant of any name for the Military Gate which led from the city into the peribolos, called it by the name of the nearest Civil Gate. Hence I propose to speak of the Pempton as the Romanus Gate and of the Civil Gate crowning the seventh hill by its present Turkish name of Top Capou--that is, Cannon Gate--a name which it probably acquired by a reversal of the process which had led the Italians to speak of the Pempton as St. Romanus.

[236] Crit. xxvi.

[237] Crit. xxvi.

[238] The Greek πέρα = _trans_, over or beyond.

[239] It is usually stated that Stamboul or Istamboul is a corruption of εἰς τὴν πόλιν, though Dr. Koelle disputes this derivation and considers that it is a mere shortening of the name Constantinople by the Turks, analogous to Skender or Iskender from Alexander. Koelle’s _Tartar and Turk_.

[240] In 1204 the Venetians and Crusaders under Dandolo and Monferrat entered the city by capturing the western portion of the walls on the side of the Horn.

[241] The position of the walls and gates is fully and admirably described in Professor Van Millingen’s _Byzantine Constantinople_, who, however, does not suggest that the Pempton was the Romanus Gate of the chroniclers of the siege.

[242] This was destroyed in the time of Suliman and replaced by a mosque which is called after his daughter Miramah, though the Greeks were allowed to build a church of St. George almost alongside it.

[243] Dr. Mordtmann is my authority for this statement. See note in the Appendix on the position of the Romanus Gate.

[244] Paspates claims that there was always water in the foss during a siege, though it was of no great depth. See p. 42 of his Παλιορκία τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. It is remarkable, however, that no mention is made of water by the contemporary writers on the last siege.

[245] _Byzantine Constantinople_, p. 86.

[246] Barbaro describes it as the place ‘dove che sun la più debel porta de tuta la tera,’ p. 21. The weakest gate he calls ‘San Romano.’

[247] Quite a considerable number of towers in the Outer Wall bear inscriptions showing that they were repaired after the Turkish siege of 1422.

[248] P. 159.

[249] ‘Antemurale solum urbis vallumque sat videbatur tutari posse,’ p. 93. ‘Operosa autem protegendi vallum et antemurale nostris fuit cura,’ p. 95.

[250] Dethier argues that it was not. The Italians who were present in the city complain that the Greeks showed a want of patriotism in not being ready to give all their wealth for the defence of the empire. But the complaint is supported by very slight evidence. The Superior of the Franciscans (Dethier’s _Siege of Constantinople_, p. 490) says that the city was lost through the avarice of the Greeks, because they would not consent to pay its defenders. He instances the case of a woman who had jewels and money of the value of 150,000 ducats, and of a man whose wealth in moveables amounted to 80,000 ducats. Jagarus and Neophytus, who are mentioned by Leonard, had been charged with the repairs of the walls, for which money had been given them, but, according to him, had misappropriated it. When the city was captured, 70,000 gold pieces were discovered by the Turks. But it is noteworthy that Phrantzes, who was in a better condition to know the truth in such a matter, has nothing but praise for Jagarus (p. 225). The statement of Leonard regarding them is examined by Dethier, who suggests that the sentence regarding the finding of the coin is due to the incorporation of a marginal note. Zorzo Dolfin, whose narrative is largely copied from Leonard, gives a somewhat different version.

As stated on the preceding page, the inscriptions on the Outer Wall still show that many towers had been repaired in the interval between Murad’s siege and that of Mahomet, and two inscriptions at least, which may perhaps be taken as intended to apply to all the towers so repaired, bear the name of Jagarus himself. (Professor Van Millingen, p. 108, and Dethier’s notes on Leonard, 593–5.)

[251] Riccherio (often quoted as Sansovino, who was the editor of Riccherio and has written a bright account of the conquest) says, ‘La speranza della difesa era tutta nel antimuro.’ (Dethier’s _Siege_, p. 955.)

[252] Chalcondylas, p. 95, Ven. edition.

[253] _Ibid._ p. 159.

[254] Crit. xxviii., and Barbaro.

[255] Ch. xxvii.

[256] See Note in Appendix claiming that during the siege the Pempton was usually called the Gate of St. Romanus.

[257] Pusculus also gives these three places, but with the difference that he mistakes the Second Military Gate for the Third.

[258] Barb. p. 21.

[259] Phr. 242–47.

[260] Dolfin, p. 994.

[261] παρὰ τὰ πλάγια.

[262] See Prof. Van Millingen, 85–92. Barbaro states that the cannon were stationed at four places: opposite the Pegè Gate, by which he means the Third Military Gate (Triton); opposite the Palace, by which he probably means in the angle now occupied by the Greek cemetery opposite the Palace of Porphyrogenitus or Tekfour Serai; opposite the Cresu Gate, probably the Chariseus or Adrianople Gate, and opposite the Romanus Gate. Philelphus also mentions the Pegè Gate as one of the chief places of attack (ii. 809).

[263] Pusculus gives fourteen palms as the circumference; Phrantzes and Critobulus, twelve; while Barbaro gives thirteen to fourteen.

[264] P. 241, κοσμικούς τε καὶ μοναχούς.

[265] See _ante_, p. 193.

[266] Crit. xxv.

[267] ὅπου καὶ ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς μέρεσιν ἡ πόλις ἦν ἐπικίνδυνος. Phrantzes, p. 253.

[268] P. 1013. The _locus arduus_ of the Myriandrion is the highest site of the city walls. Professor Van Millingen makes it identical with the Mesoteichion (p. 85), but Critobulus distinguishes between the two places (ch. xxvi.).

[269] Leonard; but Phrantzes says, p. 253, that Manuel, a Genoese, was in command at the Golden Gate.

[270] See Professor Van Millingen as to position of this gate, pp. 230–234. There were probably two Imperial Gates on the Golden Horn.

[271] According to Pusculus, Trevisano was from the first at Aivan Serai, the extreme west of the walls on the Horn and close to the Xyloporta.

[272] Barbaro, p. 19.

[273] Phrantzes states that the reserve was under Cantacuzenus and Nicephorus Palaeologus, and that the Grand Duke was in charge of the region from the Petrion to the Gate of St. Theodosia.

[274] Leonard’s account hardly varies from that of Phrantzes and others, except that, with his strong religious prejudices, he prefers to name foreigners rather than Greeks. The distributions of the defenders of the city given by Zorzi Dolfin and Pusculus do vary, however, from those given by Phrantzes and Barbaro. These differences are set out in Dr. Mordtman’s _Esquisse Topographique_, p. 23. See also Krause’s _Eroberungen von Constantinopel_, p. 169.

[275] Dethier’s _Siege_, p. 110. Chalcondylas says that it was found that the big gun of the Greeks did more damage to them by its recoil than to the enemy.

[276] Crit. xvii. The word _machine_ is usually used by contemporary writers to designate a cannon, though here, as elsewhere, it may be employed in a general sense. What is certain is that such cannon as the Greeks possessed were few in number and of small value.

[277] _Isidori Lamentatio_, p. 676; also Christoforo Riccherio, Sansovin, p. 957: both in Dethier’s _Siege_.

[278] P. 369.

[279] P. 145. Boutell’s _Arms and Armour_.

[280] La Brocquière, p. 361, where five forts on the Save are described as well furnished with artillery. He particularly notices three brass cannon.

[281] There are still the remains of two towers in Prinkipo. I fix upon the one near the ruined monastery opposite the island of Antirobithos as the place of attack, with some hesitation. The account is given by Critobulus, xxxiii.

[282] Crit. xxxiv.

[283] Ducas says four, but he is at variance with Leonard, Barbaro, and Phrantzes, and wrote his account from hearsay years afterwards.

[284] Crit. xxxix.

[285] Phrantzes; though Ducas says from Morea.

[286] Ducas, p. 121, and Crit. xxxix.

[287] ‘Come homini volonteroxi de aver victoria contra el suo inimigod’ (p. 28).

[288] Ducas, p. 121, says, to pass τὸν Μεγαδημήτριον τὸν ἀκρόπολιν. The tower stood near Seraglio Point; Dr. Mordtmann places it on the Golden Horn side, while Paspates, in Τὰ Βυζαντινὰ Ἀνάκτορα, p. 37, thought he had identified the foundations just beyond the bridge crossing the railway line to the Imperial Treasury. To have been a conspicuous landmark for ships steering from the Marmora to the harbour, as it is represented to have been, the church must have been very lofty if in the position adopted by Dr. Mordtmann.

[289] Pusculus, 385, Book iv.

[290] Barbaro says, ‘Quando queste quatro naves fo per mezo la zitade de Constantinopli subito el vento i bonazò’ (p. 23).

[291] Pusculus iv. v. 415: ‘Deserit illic ventus eas; cecidere sinus sub moenibus arcis.’

[292] Barbaro, p. 24.

[293] I doubt whether Greek fire was so much used as it is usually asserted to have been. It was always dangerous to those who used it. When employed by the Byzantine ships it caused great damage and still greater alarm. I agree with Krause that it was very rarely employed. See _Die Byzantiner des Mittelalters_, by J. H. Krause; Halle, 1869.

[294] Pusculus, iv. 340.

[295] Phrantzes.

[296] Gyllius mentions this foreshore as existing in his time, gives its width, and vividly describes how it was utilised and increased by the inhabitants of Galata (book iv. ch. 10). In digging for the foundations of the British post office in Galata in 1895, on a site that is now upwards of a hundred yards from the water, remains of an old wooden jetty were discovered. Indeed, I think it highly probable that in 1453 the whole of what is now the main street of Galata from the bridge to Tophana was under water.

[297] Pusculus, 247.

[298] Crit. xli.

[299] Barbaro, p. 24, and Phrantzes.

[300] According to Ducas, Mahomet himself inflicted the blows: an absurd statement.

[301] Ducas, 121; Leonard, Phrantzes, and Nicolo Barbaro.

[302] Hunyadi, according to Phrantzes (p. 327), asked that Silivria or Mesembria, on the bay of Bourgas, should be given to him as the price of his aid, and Phrantzes declares that the emperor ceded the latter place, he himself having written the Golden Bull making the cession. He adds also that the king of Catalonia stipulated for Lemnos as the price of his aid. But no aid came from either.

[303] Barbaro, under April 21; Phrantzes, 246. The tower is called by Leonard Bactatanea. He afterwards writes of the breach near it as being in the Murus Bacchatureus. See, as to its situation, Professor van Millingen’s _Byzantine Constantinople_, pp. 86, 87.

[304] As the only church in the neighbourhood of the place defended by Justiniani was that of St Kyriakè near the Pempton, the information is valuable as helping to fix the locality where the great gun was stationed. The Moscovite, ch. vii.

[305] The Moscovite, ch. vii., in Dethier’s _Siege_; Barbaro, p. 27; Crit.

[306] _Zarabotane._

[307] Barbaro, p. 27. The account of the fight given by Pusculus is very full and spirited. See note in Appendix as to the question where the naval fight took place.

[308] In 1203 the Crusaders and Venetians had forced the boom tower on the Galata side and loosed the chain; but it was then outside the city walls. In the time of Cantacuzenus, Galata had been enlarged so that the end of the chain was quite safe unless Galata were taken. The walls terminated, as may still be seen by the remaining towers, near Tophana.

[309] Leonard, and Sauli’s _Colonia dei Genovesi in Galata_, p. 158. Other similar instances are cited by contemporaries, but it is not necessary to suppose that Mahomet had ever heard either of the fable of Caesar’s attack upon Antony and Cleopatra or of a like feat performed by Xerxes. The Avars had made a crossing similar to that contemplated by Mahomet. The transport of the imperial fleet into Lake Ascanius in order to take possession of Nicaea in 1097 might possibly have been known to him.

[310] Λοιπὸν ὁ ἀμερᾶς τὰς τριήρεις φέρας ἐν μίᾳ νυκτί, ἐν τῷ λιμένι τῷ πρωῒ ηὑρέθησαν: Phrantzes, 251.

[311] Dethier places them on a small plateau now occupied by the English Memorial Church. [_Note on_ Pusculus, book iv. line 482. Professor van Millingen (p. 231), in discussing the question of the position of St. Theodore, suggests that the sultan’s battery stood nearer the Bosporus than the present Italian Hospital. This suggestion is not necessarily at variance with the position indicated by Dethier.]

[312] Philelphus, book ii. line 976: ‘Genuae tunc clara juventus obstupuit.’ Ducas, however, states that the Genoese claimed to have known of the proposed transport and to have allowed it out of friendship to Mahomet.

[313] ‘Et hic quidem in superiori parte per montem navigia transportavit ... in litore stabant milites parati propulsare hostes bombardis, si accederent prohibituri deducere naves.’ Chalcondylas, book viii.

[314] Crit. says 68; Barbaro, 72; Tetaldi, between 70 and 80; Chalcondylas, 70; and Ducas, 80; Heirullah says there were only 20; the Janissary Michael, 30; the _Anon. Expugnatio_, edited by Thyselius, sect. 12, says not less than 80.

[315] ‘Lacertus’ is the word Leonard ingeniously uses for the Greek πῆχυς.

[316] Crit. book iv. ch. 42. It is difficult to determine the size of the boat selected for this overland transit. Barbaro says, ‘le qual fusti si iera de banchi quindexe fina banchi vinti et anchi vintido’ (page 28). This would agree fairly well with the statement of Chalcondylas, that some had thirty and some fifty oars. Mr. Cecil Torr calculates that a thirty-oared ship would be about seventy feet long, a statement which appears probable (_Ancient Ships_, p. 21). The mediaeval galleys and other large vessels propelled by oars differed essentially from those of the sixteenth century, which were worked with long oars. See note on p. 234. I am myself not entirely satisfied that among the boats were not biremes and possibly triremes in the sense of boats which had two or three tiers of oars, one above the other. Fashions change slowly in Turkey, and I have seen a bireme with two such tiers of oars on the Bosporus. No writer mentions the length of the vessels which were carried across Pera Hill. A large modern fishing caique in the Marmora, probably not differing much in shape from the fustae then transported, and containing twelve oars, measures about fifty feet long. When the boats are longer, two men take one oar, but this is very unusual. Leonard speaks of the seventy vessels as biremes. Barbaro calls them fustae. The former was probably the best Latin word to signify the new form of vessel. Many of the ships were large, though it may be taken as certain that none were of the length of the two galleys recently raised in lake Nemi, near Rome, which belonged to Caligula, each of which is 225 feet long and 60 feet beam.

[317] See note in Appendix on transport of Mahomet’s ships.

[318] Ducas, xxviii.

[319] Phrantzes, p. 327.

[320] Crit. lxxii.

[321] Barbaro says that the meeting was in St. Mary’s; but Pusculus (iv. 578) says, in St. Peter Claviger, which Dethier places near St. Sophia.

[322] Phrantzes, 256.

[323] Barbaro, under April 24 and 25.

[324] Pusculus, lines 585 et seq.

[325] Pusculus, iv. 610.

[326] Barbaro, 31.

[327] The account of this attempt to destroy the Turkish ships in the harbour is best given by Barbaro, but Phrantzes and Pusculus are in substantial agreement with him.

[328] Phrantzes (p. 248) says 260 Turkish prisoners were executed.

[329] The Moscovite, ch. vii.

[330] Crit. xliv.

[331] Dr. Mordtmann places the bridge between Cumberhana and Defterdar Scala.

[332] Ducas gives the above dimensions. Assuming the width from centre of each barrel, including a space between them, to be four feet, this would give the length of the bridge as 2,000 feet, which is about the width of the Horn at the place mentioned. Phrantzes gives its length at a hundred fathoms and the breadth fifty fathoms. These dimensions are clearly wrong if applied to the bridge, since the length falls far short of the width of the gulf. Leonard says it was thirty stadia long. Here, as elsewhere, I suspect that he uses stadium for some measure about one ninth of a furlong in length. If this conjecture is right, his estimate of the length of the bridge is about 2,000 feet.

[333] Phrantzes, 252.

[334] Barbaro, 36; Phrantzes, 250.

[335] The Moscovite, xv. While there are useful hints in this anonymous author, he is generally untrustworthy. This fight, for example, is represented as being outside the walls. It is incredible that the Greeks should have made a sortie at this period of the siege. As an illustration of the untrustworthy character of the writer, it may be noted that the number of Turks killed during the siege totals up to 130,000!

[336] Leonard, the _Vallum_ and the _Antemurale_.

[337] Phrantzes, p. 244.

[338] ‘Bastion’ is the word used for a wooden tower or castle by Barbaro and by the translator of the Moscovite. Chalcondylas calls it _helepolis_, distinguishing it from the cannon which he names _teleboles_. Ducas speaks of cannon usually by the word χωνείαν, sometimes as τὰς πετροβολιμαίους χώνας or σκευαὶ πετροβόλοι or simply as τὸ σκεῦος; Phrantzes employs the word _helepolis_ for a wooden turret (pp. 237, 244). The latter word is used by Critobulus for a cannon. It was an epithet applied to Helen, ‘the Taker of Cities.’ In the Bonn edition of Phrantzes it is also employed, both in the text and the Latin translation, for cannon; but a reference to the readings of the Paris MS. suggests that it is an error. Phrantzes’s words for cannons are _teleboles_ and _petroboles_.

[339] The ‘Chastel de bois’ was ‘si haut, si grand et si fort qu’il maistrisoit le mur et dominait par-dessus’ (Tetaldi, p. 25).

[340] Barbaro states that it occupied a place called the ‘Cresca,’ possibly a copyist’s error for Cressus (= Chariseus), the name which I believe he gave indifferently with San Romano to the Pempton. Elsewhere he uses Cresca for the Golden Gate (_e.g._ p. 18). Possibly, however, he is referring to another turret, which was at the Golden Gate. Barbaro’s knowledge of places and names is not accurate. If Barbaro’s ‘bastion’ is the ‘helepole’ of which Phrantzes speaks (p. 245), then the three writers agree that the principal turret was at the Romanus Gate.

[341] The Moscovite, 1087; Phrantzes, 247.

[342] Leonard, p. 93: ‘Mauritius Cataneus ... inter portam Pighi, id est fontis, usque ad Auream contra ligneum castrum, pellibus boum contectum, oppositum accurate decertat.’ Cardinal Isidore, in the _Lamentatio_, says, p. 676: ‘Admoventur urbi ligneae turres.’

[343] Barbaro, under dates of May 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.

[344] As to the question whether there was water in the foss, see Professor Van Millingen’s _Byz. Constantinople_, pp. 57–8.

[345] Crit. xxxi. Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ὕστερον περιττὸν ἔδοξε, καὶ ματαία δαπάνη, τῶν μηχανῶν τὸ πᾶν κατεργασαμένων.

[346] The return, as mentioned, was on May 23, but is given by Barbaro under the 3rd. This is one of the passages which show that his diary was revised and added to after the siege.

[347] Crit. xlvi.; Pusculus, iv. 889, says:

Candida completo cum Phoebe surgeret orbe
Moesta prodit, fati miseri cladisque propinquae
Nuntia; nam tristis faciem velamine nubis
Tecta atrae, mediaque latens plus parte sereno
Incedit coelo.

Barbaro seems to describe an eclipse of the moon on May 22. The elder Dr. Mordtmann states that there was no full moon and consequently no eclipse on the 22nd, but that there was on the 24th. Dethier’s note on The Moscovite, p. 1100. Phrantzes, p. 264, speaks of a light flashing from the sky settling over the city, and remaining during the whole night. See note, _post_ p. 316.

[348] Constantine was a widower, his wife, Catherine, having died in 1442, a year after her marriage. Phrantzes, 195–8.

[349] The same remark applies to The Moscovite generally. There are so many manifest fringes to what ought to have been the correct narrative of an eye-witness that it is impossible to distinguish truth from falsehood.

[350] Barbaro, under May 20.

[351] Leonard, _Opere_, p. 94.

[352] Leonard, p. 92.

[353] _Ibid._ p. 95.

[354] Barbaro, under May 28.

[355] _Ep. Ang. Johannis Zacchariae Potestatis Perae_, Sec. 2, edition revised by Edward Hopf and Dethier.

[356] Leonard, p. 94, and also Italian version given by Dethier, p. 644.

[357] Tetaldi, pp. 32–35.

[358] Crit. xlviii.

[359] See also the Moscovite, xx.

[360] Crit. lx.

[361] Barbaro, Pusculus, and Leonard agree with Critobulus in their description of the stockade.

[362] Phrantzes, 263.

[363] _Ibid._ 326. M. Mijatovich, in his pleasant and valuable _Constantine, last Emperor of the Greeks_, states that Mahomet received an ambassador from Ladislaus on May 26 (p. 198); but I do not know on what authority.

[364] Phrantzes, 325.

[365] M. Mitjatovich’s suggestion that the negotiations had probably emanated from the wily cardinal who had been the evil spirit of Ladislaus, or possibly from the crafty, but unpractical, mind of George Brancovich, appears plausible.

[366] Phrantzes, 326; Ducas, xxxviii.

[367] Ducas, xxxviii.

[368] Tetaldi says: ‘Se l’armée de Venise que menoit et conduisoit Messire Jean le Rendoul [Loredano] fut arrivé à Constantinople ung seul jour avant que cette cité fust prinse, certes il n’y avoit aucun doute qu’ils eussent fort secouru et fussent venus bien à point’ (p. 30).

[369] ‘Per el campo del Turco in questo zorno se fexe asai feste, de soni, e de altra condition de alegreze, e questo perche i sentiva che tosto i volea dare la bataia zeneral’ (p. 48, under May 24).

[370] Phrantzes, 263.

[371] Leonard, p. 95; Phrantzes, 263; Crit. xlvi.

[372] Crit. xlvii.

[373] The accounts of this light (or darkness), which alarmed both sides, are somewhat conflicting. Perhaps here also Critobulus is the safest guide. In chapter xlvi. he mentions the religious procession already described, where the statue of the Virgin falls, and says it was ‘three or four days before the attack.’ Immediately after came torrential rains with vivid flashes of lightning. Then, ‘the next day,’ there was a thick fog lasting till evening. Barbaro speaks of a darkness, due, judging from his description, to an eclipse of the moon, lasting from the first to the sixth hour after sunset, as being on the 22nd. This alarmed the Greeks, he says, because of an ancient prophecy which declared that Constantinople should not be lost until the moon should give a sign in the heavens. Phrantzes (page 264) says: φῶς ἀστράπτον καταβαῖνον ἐξ οὐρανῶν καὶ δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς ἄνωθεν τῆς πόλεως ἑστὸς διέσκεπεν αὐτήν. Possibly both Phrantzes and Barbaro have the same atmospheric night effects in view: that is, that there were frequent flashes of lightning during the night so long as the eclipse lasted. The statement of Pusculus, who was in the city at the time, has already been quoted. See p. 297, _ante_. The account of Critobulus appears clear, but it does not eliminate the miraculous, for he declares that many persons, both Romans and foreigners, declared that they had seen the Divinity hiding Himself in the clouds.

[374] Ducas also mentions the attempt recorded by Chalcondylas, but without mentioning the name of Ismail. Ducas thus mentions two negotiations for peace, the first (if it ever existed) being towards the end of April and the second nearly a month after.

[375] The Turkish historian Sad-ud-din, (p. 20) represents the emperor as offering to surrender everything except Constantinople; to which Mahomet’s reply was, ‘Either the city, the sword, or El-Islam.’

[376] Leonard.

[377] Leonard, Phrantzes, and Tetaldi all speak of him as friendly to the Christians. He was, however, disliked by Mahomet, because he had persuaded Murad to send his son to Magnesia. Tetaldi says that the Christians in the Turkish army shot letters into the city to let the besieged know all that went on in the council.

[378] According to Leonard, the sultan ordered Zagan to fix a day for a general assault.

[379] Phrantzes, 623–8, and also Leonard.

[380] The narrative of Phrantzes relating the decision of the meeting of the Turkish council concludes by stating that this was on the 27th--that is, Sunday (p. 269). It may have been, but it is difficult to believe that the council meeting, the sending of Zagan to learn the opinion of the soldiers, his return and the decision, together with the subsequent proclamation, were all crowded into one day. Barbaro gives the proclamation as being made on Monday the 28th. Leonard says that, as a result of the meeting, a proclamation was issued for the attack to be on Tuesday and for the three preceding days to be devoted to prayer and one of them to fasting. If he is correct, the council could not have been on the 27th. Tetaldi states that the council lasted during four days. The statement appears possible, and perhaps gives the explanation of the apparent discrepancies in the narratives.

[381] Leonard, 96, Phrant. 269; Barbaro adds that the Turks believed that on the morrow they would have so many Christians in hand that two slaves could be bought for a ducat: such riches that everything would be of gold, and they could have enough hair from the heads of Christian priests to make ropes with which to tie up their dogs.

[382] The Moscovite, xxii. This first wound is only mentioned by the Moscovite.

[383] Phrantzes, 269.

[384] Barbaro, p. 50.

[385] Barbaro. Ducas says, from St. Eugenius to Hodegetria and as far as Vlanga (p. 282–3), which is substantially the same position as that given by Critobulus.

[386] Zorso Dolfin, p. 78.

[387] Sad-ud-din, p. 16. Translation by E. J. W. Gibb.

[388] τούφακας; in modern Greek the name for sporting guns is τουφέκια. The Turks call them _Toufeng_. Ducas uses the word μολυβδοβόλοι.

[389] Crit. xlvii. to lii.

[390] According to Critobulus, the meeting of the Council was on the 27th.

[391] Phrantzes, 269–70. Was the speech as recorded by Critobulus ever delivered? The answer I am disposed to give is that a speech was delivered which was substantially that reported by Phrantzes and Critobulus. The fashion followed by the Byzantine writers, and their desire to imitate classical models, by putting all speeches in the first person, made it necessary to invent a speech if the substance of what was said were known. Critobulus, writing some years after the capture and having had many opportunities of meeting with the Turkish leaders, was in a position to learn what was said and done by them, and hence his report, wherever it can be tested, almost invariably proves trustworthy.

[392] Barbaro, May 28.

[393] Crit. liv.

[394] Phrantzes, 271–8; Leonard, 97.

[395] Phrantzes, 279; The Moscovite, p. 1113. The ceremony is also mentioned in the Georgian Chronicle.

[396] _Libro d’Andrea Cambini Florentino della Origine de Turchi et imperio delli Ottomanni._ Edition of 1529, p. 25.

[397] Phrantzes, p. 280. The closing of the gates behind the soldiers is mentioned also by other writers.

[398] The Caligaria Gate was the present Egri Capou. For a description of Caligaria and the neighbouring palace of Blachern see Professor van Millingen’s _Byzantine Constantinople_, p. 128. Caligaria was the name of a district which was in the corner made by the wall running at right angles to the foss, where it terminates on the north just beyond Tekfour Serai, and that which leads down the steep slope to the Golden Horn.

[399] Phrantzes, p. 280.

[400] The question when the general attack began is very much one of appreciation. According to Ducas, Mahomet commenced on the Sunday evening to make a general attack and during the night the besieged were not permitted to sleep but were harassed all night and, though in a less active manner, until between four and five of the afternoon of Monday. Phrantzes declares the capture to have been made on the third day of the attack and would thus make it begin on Sunday, but his narrative shows that the general attack began after midnight of the 28–9th. Barbaro’s statement substantially agrees with that of Phrantzes and is that during the whole of the 27th the cannons were discharging their stone balls: _tuto el zorno non feze mai altro che bombardar in le puovere mure_; but on p. 51 he says that Mahomet came before the walls to begin the general attack at three hours before day on the 29th. Critobulus makes the general attack begin on the afternoon of the 28th, when the sultan raised his great standard (Crit. lii. and lv.). Karl Müller, in his excellent notes to Critobulus, justly remarks that as Barbaro and Phrantzes were in the city their evidence ought to be preferred to that of Critobulus. They both represent the final assault as beginning very early in the morning of the 29th. The statements are reconcilable by supposing that the dispositions for a general attack began on the Sunday, but that the actual general assault did not take place until the Tuesday morning. Sad-ud-din says, on the authority of two Turkish contemporaries, that ‘the great victory was on Tuesday, the fifty-first day from the commencement of the war’ (p. 34).

[401] Cambini, 24.

[402] P. 160.

[403] Ch. lv.

[404] P. 52.

[405] Leonard, p. 86: ‘Testis sum quod Graeci, quod Latini, quod Germani, Panones, Boetes, ex omnium christianorum regionibus Teucris commixti opera eorum fidemque didicerunt.’

[406] Riccherio, 958: ‘Percioche Maometh pensava, ricreando gli stracchi col rimetter nuove genti nella zuffa, verrebbe a non dar punto di spatio per riposarsi a Greci, di maniera che, non potendo sostener tanta fatica per lo continuo combattimento, si sarebbono agevolmente potuti vincere.’

[407] Crit. liv.

[408] Michael Constantinovich, a Servian who was with a contingent of his countrymen in the Turkish army, says, ‘As far as our help went, the Turks would never have taken the city’ (quoted by Mijatovich, p. 234).

[409] τούφακας, Crit. li.

[410] Chalc. p. 160.

[411] Barbaro (54) says, Greeks and Venetians, omitting all mention of the Genoese.

[412] Crit. lvi.

[413] Leonard: ‘in loco arduo Myriandri.’

[414] Pusculus, iv. 173, and Zorzo Dolfin, 55.

[415] Crit. lvii.

[416] Leonard, p. 98: ‘Tenebrosa nox in lucem trahitur, nostris vincentibus. Et dum astra cedunt, dum Phoebi praecedit Lucifer ortum, Illalla, Illalla in martem conclamans, conglobatus in gyrum consurgit exercitus.’

[417] Crit. lvii.

[418] Παραπόρτιον ἓν πρὸ πολλῶν χρόνων ἀσφαλῶς πεφραγμένον, ὑπόγαιον, πρὸς τὸ κάτωθεν μέρος τοῦ παλατίου.

[419] Its complete name was Porta Xylokerkou, because it led to a wooden circus outside the city. See the subject fully discussed by Professor van Millingen, _Byzantine Constantinople_, pp. 89–94.

[420] I am not satisfied that the Kerkoporta was the one indicated by Professor van Millingen. On the map published by the Greek Syllogos, as well as in Canon Curtis’s _Broken Bits of Byzantium_, a small postern is shown in the wall immediately south of the tower adjoining Tekfour Serai, and my own recollection is that I saw this walled-up postern with Dr. Paspates in 1875. The wall itself was pulled down on the outbreak of the last Turko-Russian war and replaced by a slighter one. Whichever view be correct, the statement in the text is not affected.

Professor van Millingen contends that the Kerkoporta strictly so called was the small gate in the corner between Tekfour Serai and the adjoining tower on the south. But he maintains also that the postern to which Ducas refers was in the transverse wall, giving access from the city to the Inner Enclosure. He remarks that if the Turks entered by the Kerkoporta they could have mounted the great Inner Wall from the city. As to the latter objection, it must be remembered that the fighters were within the Enclosure defending the Outer Wall, and if the Turks entered through the postern in the transverse wall they would take the fighters in the rear. It would have been a better position for attack than on the Inner Wall.

[421] Phrantzes, p. 285.

[422] Crit. lvi.

[423] Sad-ud-din gives an interesting variant of the story of Ducas. He states that while ‘the blind-hearted emperor’ was busy resisting the besiegers of the city at his palace to the north of the Adrianople Gate,’ ‘suddenly he became aware that the upraisers of the most glorious standard of “The Word of God” had found a path to within the walls’ (Sad-ud-din, p. 30). The statement that the emperor was present at Tekfour Serai agrees with that of Ducas; but the latter’s account of the events immediately following the entry by the Kerkoporta varies so much from that given by others that I suspect some sentences have dropped out of his narrative.

[424] Crit. lviii.

[425] _Ibid._

[426] Leonard, p. 37.