The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West

I chose to read 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West for my World History book review because I have always been interested in the history of Constantinople, especially its fall. Roger Crowley introduced the story with an attention-getting prologue that gave me an overall idea of the actions to come. When I began reading the book, I was surprised that Crowley began the story from the very beginning of the attacks on Constantinople in 669 by Caliph Muawiyyah. The book continues to depict all of the action Constantinople was a part of. Crowley clearly explains the origins of Constantine XI, the Emperor of Byzantium at the time, and Sultan Mehmet II, the Ottoman leader at the time.

I was very satisfied with this book; the amount of detail, illustrations, and pictures is incredible. The final attack on Constantinople is depicted play by play beginning in 1451 with Sultan Mehmet's plans. The following chapters provide month by month and then day by day details down to the hours. The weapons used and the military strategies are all delineated in great detail with illustrations. Crowley definitely completes his purpose of educating about the history between the Ottomans and Constantinople. He also unravels the relationship between Christianity and Islam that surrounds the history of Constantinople. Overall, this book was a great historical and action read. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys all the details that history has to offer and doesn't mind being sucked back in time to be right in the middle of all the action.

Crowley vividly resurrects the human drama, the bitterness of the struggle, the despair, the hope, and the resourcefulness of a people pushed to the brink of despair.

The book is also an excellent review of medieval history from a different angle: The empires in the Near East. Crowley does a superb job expanding on the economic, political, ideologic, religious, social, geographic, technological, and military dimensions of a conflict that in a sense still rages on to our date.

I found the book hard to put down from the beginning to the very end. Well written and very informative. This is the type of book that kindled my love of history in the first place.

Roger Crowley, has fallen in love with his subject matter. The best evidence is this book. Every word and punctuation mark of which betrays his joy and enthusiasm for this story of the enormous two-millennium running (and still counting) clash of civilizations between Islam and Christianity, a clash that began even before the civilizations themselves were well-defined enough to call themselves separate cultures.

Here, as we are taken by the hand and led from the fourth to the fifteenth century into one cataclysmic year -- indeed into one cataclysmic day -- May 29, 1453, we then finally begin to understand how the clash of civilizations unfolded and what it all means.

But as the author well knew, understanding that history, did not require a linear recitation, a one line narrative strain, but required a novel way of telling this multi-millennial story, a way that allowed, not just a dramatic depiction of a set of constantly changing events embedded within a constantly changing geopolitical context, but also and most importantly, required giving the reader an almost tactile feel for the connective tissues and sinews that bound the context to the events in the story.

In my view, it is this constant depiction of the role the connective tissue played in the embedded events that reveals the author's special talents, and that also reveals all the reader needs to know about that history.

For instance, I often wondered why, if the barbarians were (by definition) savage, inbred idiots, how it is that they were nevertheless still brilliant enough to bring down, arguably, the highest civilization man has ever known?

Well, as the author makes devastatingly clear here, outside the walls of Rome and Constantinople, while the "so-called barbarians" were constantly fighting each other, among other things, they also were perfecting the art of war, especially siege and mounted warfare.

And as it turns out, "fighting while riding horses," for half a millennium, proved to be a game changing asymmetric advantage against a basically sedentary and corrupt city-dwelling opponent, content to hide behind the delusional security of walls and moats. With well-honed war-fighting abilities, and patience, military innovation became the barbarians main ally. Their battle cry was: Be resourceful, wait; and the those walls will come tumbling down. And so they did.

But more than this, they also recruited soldiers from amongst the disgruntled feudal ranks. There was a new kind of equality in being a barbarian soldier that had not yet been invented by Europe's feudal-run societies. Being a barbarian soldier actually was an elevation in status from that of being a vassal peon.

But surviving in a walled-in death trap, erroneously imagined to be an impregnable defense, also required ingenuity, savvy-ness and savagery at least equal to that of their barbarian opponents.

How about the "on-the-spot" invention of fourth-century flame throwers that decimated Muslim ships, sending them scurrying with their tails tucked. That innovation still baffles military specialists even today.

In fact, the utter joy of this book is that with the operational cockpit vantage point provided by the author, the reader is literally carried away by the details that show how innovation is used "on-the-fly" on both sides, throughout the clash to underwrite survival from day-to-day. No wonder this literary format was used.

If history gets more exciting than this, I will not be able to contain myself. Five stars

Well written and fascinating, I read this book before, during and after the trip. It really helped me understand the amazing history of Istanbul. It reads like a novel but is chock full of historical facts and interesting stories.

Well written book that will draw you in. Story is told from both perspectives of the conflict and is a very easy read. Crowley does a good job setting up the backgound for the final seige and describes unfolding events in detail. Great book.

This is a wonderful book. It fills in and explains vast amounts of history in interesting and often exciting ways. Roman, "Byzantine," Islamic, Turkish, Catholic, and other major cultures convulse, contend, and evolve. The amazing city of Constantinople-Istanbul and the long-lasting Roman Empire come alive along with their amazing traditions and people. It's a very enjoyable and enlightening read.

A slow revival in the interest of Byzantium has recently been sweeping our era and Roger Crowley shows particular interest while writing this book. The book begins with the first couple chapters detailing the history of Islam and the Byzantine empire. The book soon wraps of this introduction though and begins an in depth account of the siege. Starting with the preparations Mehmet had to make to take the city and ending with the sack of the city, though another chapter details the rise of the Ottomans in Europe after the taking of Constantinople. I found the last chapters about the 28 and 29 of May to contain invigorating detail and more told as a story with few interruptions to the views of primary sources. I completely recommend this book to anyone who is looking to find out more about the Ottoman conquest of the city and it is a good read for anyone who already has somewhat of a prior knowledge of Byzantine history

If you are interested in the fall of Constantanople and the end of the Roman empire, this book is an absolutely riveting read. The final battle of several months is detailed incredibly well. Specific events often are pinpointed to an exact hour on a specific day. One day starts in a city named Constantinople with a battle raging through the night, and at about 8:00 am the next day that city is Istanbul. Incredible!

If you are interested in the fall of Constantanople and the end of the Roman empire, this book is an absolutely riveting read. The final battle of several months is detailed incredibly well. Specific events often are pinpointed to an exact hour on a specific day. One day starts in a city named Constantinople with a battle raging through the night, and at about 8:00 am the next day that city is Istanbul. Incredible!

Like the title says this is a entertaining popular history on the Ottoman empire. If your looking for an easy to read book on a very small period of Ottoman history then pick this up. If you are looking for something more academic then keep looking, also the book doesn't transition very well from paragraph to paragraph let alone from chapter to chapter. All in all the book is an entertaining popular history, but lacks proper transition from topic to topic.

While Roger Crowley is certainly a first rate historian, he possesses some flaws. 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West is by and far a great read but it may not be best choice for a novice to historical studies thanks to Crowley’s errors with the names of places and people. The most glaring naming error in this book was when Crowley referred to the Maritime Republic of Ragusa (Republica Marittima Ragusana) as Dubrovnik.

While Dubrovnik is indeed the modern name of Ragusa, in 1453 Ragusa was still ruled by an Italian elite that spoke a language that was quite similar to Venetian. Indeed, eventually Ragusa became part of the Republic of Venice along with most of Dalmatian coast line. In deed, to this day ethnic Italians can be found in Slovenia and Croatia and according to some historical accounts Marco Polo was actually born in Split.

In the case of the names of people, Crowley often annoyingly uses the Anglicized version of the name, or in the case of Giustiniani, fails to provide the full name; Giovanni Giustiniani Longo. While these may seems like minor errors, I would tend to believe that an historian of the caliber of Crowley would not be prone to such mistakes. This is a great book but it could have been edited better.

1453 was recommended to me prior to visiting Istanbul. I now believe that you cannot appreciate Istanbul without reading it. Though the events described in the book took place 557 years ago, its relevant in today's world. The book is very well written and its an easy read.

Five years ago, this book might have been relegated to the dusty shelves of those interested in an obscure bit of ancient history. But after the events of 9/11 revealed the intensity and fury of the Islamic insurgency, the events of 1453 become very relevant to contemporary readers.

1453 is the poignant story of the Islamic conquest of the last outpost of the Roman Empire, Constantinople. Most people think Rome fell in the fifth century. In fact, the city of Rome was capital of only the Western portion of the empire. After its conquest by barbarians, the Eastern portion (known as the Byzantine Empire) survived, albeit ever diminishing, for another millenium.

Its decline and ultimate demise was largely a function of the rise of militant Islam, which drove the devoutly Christian Byzantines out of the holy lands in the first millenium CE, prompting repeated, papacy-inspired counterattacking crusades wherein the devolved West, allied with Byzantium endeavored to recapture them, ultimately to no avail. In fact, the antipathy between East and West emanating from the schism that divided the church into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox factions eventually led to a crusader sack of Constantinople itself in the 1200s that left the weakened city easy prey to a reenergized militant Islam.

Crowley magnificently lays out this historical background, including the several failed militant Islamic attacks on the city, which represented the bulwark of Christianity's defense against a militant Islam bent on world domination. He details the elaborate defenses and how they deterred a millenium of onslaughts and the reasons they ultimately gave way. Chillingly, technology provided to militant Islam by Christians was key-an ominous parallel with today's militant Islamic obsession with nuclear technology. He goes on to detail the ramifications of the fall of this last line of defense, including militant Islamic incursions into Europe as far as Italy, which continued until the ultimate defeat of the invasion at Vienna.

This was indeed a world war, which the West thought it had won so long ago and so decisively that it had virtually forgotten it. But the events of the 21st century indicate that for militant Islamic insurgents, it seems like just yesterday that they were the dominant military forces in the world, reducing the crown of Christian civilization to rubble. For them, the struggle is endless. It was 700 years after the first militant Islamic attack on Constantinople that they achieved final victory. Another 700 years passed between that victory and 9/11. Western readers will gain valuable insight into the mindset of the Islamic insurgency by reading this important book.

The book discusses with a great detail the turkish military campaign against Constantinople. Furthermore, the author provides a quasi- psychological profile of S. Mehemet. But the book does not provide a socio-political research of the events that have preceded the Fall of Constantinople and it doesn't discuss the aftermath of this major event. I have expected a clear discussion of the implications of the city's downfall; something similar to The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
The author attempt to create a balanced picture of the event is irrelevant, albeit the result of the turkish occupation of Constantinople, according to the book, is that they all "lived happily ever after", the attack of an army of 150,000-200,000 strong against the impoverished city that had a defense of 7000 strong had fatal consequences that affected not only the fate of Byzantines but also the fate of Europe.

Byzantium. Constantinople. Istanbul. Intellectually, it is easy enough to remember that these three cities are in fact the same, sitting on the Bosphorus, straddling the border between Europe and the East. However, it is difficult to get a visceral feel for the fact that the current city of mosques and minarets was for over a millennia one of the centers of the Christian world. Fortunately, there is a book like 1453 to take us back and let us experience how such a transformation takes place.

In his book, Mr. Crowley takes us back to the year of the title, when Sultan Mehmet II, a man barely out of his teens but who has survived the intrigues that barred his way to the throne, lays siege to Constantinople. Despite the fact that the city has resisted sieges many times before thanks to its natural water defenses and ancient western wall, Mehmet is willing to take the risk. Constantine XI, the aging emperor who guards the city, is weak and his city and empire is only a shadow of its former glory. So, Mehmet gathers his armies and vassals and heads to the walls.

Overall, Mr. Crowley's descriptions of the siege are absorbing. He points out the very important advantages that Mehmet had over previous would-be conquerors: he brings cannon and a navy. The walls of Constantinople were impregnable to a classic mediaeval attack but the arrival of gunpowder to the West and the development of cannon made the walls vulnerable. Plus, no attacker had ever brought a navy to bear on the city before and its very existence cut off the possibility of resupplying the city, making a successful siege a possibility.

But Mehmet's victory was by no means assured and, in fact, he could have easily failed. His guns could only fire a few salvos a day and his navy was basically outclassed had his enemies ever being willing to meet him directly in battle. The lengthening siege made it difficult to manage his vast armies. Plus, the city was defended. Mr. Crowley shows great respect for the defenders of the city, their strategies and valor. As Mehmet's guns brought down sections of the wall, the citizens of Constantinople would sneak out at night and rebuild. Down to the last battle, the people of Constantinople seemed to believe their city could not fall.

Of course, fall it did. Mr. Crowley quickly gives us the final successful push into the city which, be it through luck or valor, went to the Turks in hours once the walls were breached. As Mehmet enters the city we get to see both the good and bad of a city defeated in the Middle Ages, mercy and spoils, revenge and glory. And we get a brief account of the spread of the news through the West and its effect on subsequent history.

All in all, this account of an important moment in the history of the Western world is a great read. It is informative and insightful, managing to build tension and excitement despite the fact that the reader knows the outcome. And Mr. Crowley's fairness to both the Christian defenders and the Turkish conquerors makes it palatable and not strident. There is no doubt that this defeat after 1000 years of successful defense was a tragic time but this fading star of the Christian world rises to become the center of the Muslim world, maintaining its glory for centuries more. This city deserves its story to be told.

1453 is well-written from a literary point of view, but Crowley's credibility is tarnished by his insistence on finding moral equivalency between the Islam conquerors and the Christian/Greek forces they defeated even where none existed. Crowley, for example, cites a Byzantine decision to execute Muslim prisoners in response to Muslim's executing captured Greeks as a partial justification for the original Muslim atrocity, and throughout fails to find any moral fault with the Muslim decision to attack Constantinople in the first place, despite the attack being mostly unprovoked.

Best not to take this book too seriously for historical accuracy. As seems the case currently many histories are being rewritten with a bias towards historic revisionist views. This book is written quite well and is mostly on the money however I cannot understand the passages that point to the Black Death as the leading consequence for the ultimate fall of Constantinople. The reality is that the 4th Crusade went terribly wrong and the Papal troops attached Constantinople with the aid of a banished former prince. Themfollowing days of rampant destruction, pillage and murder in the name of Western Christianity wrought such destruction that the city was not able to recover in time to defeat the Mongol Hordes led by Mehmet.

Another bit of revisionism is found when Sultan Mehmet entered the city following 4 days of pillage, he stated publicly, and it comes to us from two sources, that he knew not what horror he wrought upon the most beautiful of the worlds cities. The accumulation of gold, precious jewels, and silks filled a caravan ten miles in length. To say that he was disappointed at what he found is far from the truth, to say he cried at what he had allowed to be done is correct.

This is an old-fashioned narrative history, told with verve. While it breaks no apparent new ground in research, it fulfills a need for an intelligent account aimed at educated audiences. Roger Crowley synthesizes the accounts of chroniclers, not always reliable, into what he calls in his afterword a "robust" telling of this dramatic event. I have often wondered why fiction or film does not draw on the potential packed in this clash. Crowley reminds us (despite the subtitle) that many who fought for the "Greek" side were drawn from throughout Christendom, while those conscripted for the fight to conquer the city were non-Muslims forced to do so from the Balkans, or as janissaries, more than as willing converts.

"The city lived under siege for almost all its life; its defenses reflected the deepest character and history of the place, its mixture of confidence and fatalism, divine inspiration and practical skill, longevity and conservatism." (85) Crowley examines the static nature of the siege warfare, and that for a thousand years of the city, too, that its components for defense and assault changed little. Constantinople remained as it had long been.

I liked the opening and closing segments. The first takes us up to the key year, showing how this city-fortress endured thanks to its well-engineered walls and ideal location for so long. It's also sobering to watch how the Byzantine Empire shrank to nearly the limits of the walls as the Ottomans won the loyalty, by coercion or convincing. Provocative to consider if the now often-touted claim that the Islamic realm treated Christians (and Jews) better than other rulers did was to exert more taxes from them, as sharia law permitted, vs. those who "turned Turk." Crowley raises this as an aside but he does not draw the remark out to its possible conclusion. This is a fast-paced rendering, not a nuanced one.

That's one factor that could have tightened this book. His military focus, on the cannons and fire-sprayers, the sappers and the batterers, is expected. But there's not a lot of analysis until the concluding, brief summation. Yet, you do get set pieces in splendid form, and the fact that the battle that breached the walls took but five hours before daybreak flows like a scene from "Game of Thrones" in its staging and shifting action.

“1453” by Roger Crowley is an engaging read.

This book has a judicious balance of history and the drama of the great siege.

29th May 1453, is a landmark date in history, on this day, the 1000 year old capital of Byzantine Empire, also known as the East Roman Empire, fell to the Ottomans. (For the next 500 years it was the capital of the Ottomans upto 1923. It is now known as Istanbul.) This event is stated to have contributed to the Renaissance in Europe- as scholars from Constantinople fled to Europe, and; it also led to the quest for an alternative i.e, sea route to east, for spices - hence, Columbus, Vasco da Gama . To some it marks the end of middle ages.

Constantinople was famed for its wealth. It was considered impregnable due to its man made walls and sea on two sides. By 1453, the city was a mere shadow of its former glory, though it still held great symbolic power. To the 19 year old Mehmet, the Ottoman Sultan, it was dearly coveted and he fed his soldiers with stories of unimaginable wealth they could get once they were inside the city.

The early chapters in the book systematically develop the context for the event. The political, social, religious and economic aspects have been brought out. We have a lively account of life and times in the city through many quaint anecdotes and interesting stories. One gets a good idea of the crucial factors necessary to appreciate this momentous event such as -
- the myth surrounding Constantinople and how it was both a scar and longing for the Turks
- the religious turmoil, the beliefs in force,
- the situation on the ground - shrinking of Byzantine empire within the walls of Constantinople juxtaposed with the rising fortunes of the
Ottomans whose empire now surrounded Constantinople.
- the character of the two protagonists youthful Mehmet and the middle aged Constantine XI

In the middle part of the book, the author captures the feverish pace of the build up towards the siege. By comparison Mehmet was systematically preparing for the seige - developing his strategic plans, technological innovations – gunpowder and ruthlessly executing them; Constantine was making desperate efforts to garner support from the Christian empires and was engulfed in the conflict between Orthodox and the Catholic church.

The actual siege started in April 1453 and lasted nearly two months. This was a high octane drama of unrelenting bombardment on the walls, continuous repair to the walls, naval chases, skirmishes, hand to hand battles interspersed with hectic counter measures, on the spot innovations, brilliant countermoves and ingenious plans. The soldiers on both sides were an eclectic mix apart from the famed Janissaries on the side of Ottomans. Venetians, Genoese and a Scot were among the many on the Byzantine side. Towards the end, as it happens in a fictional climax, both sides had reached the end of their tether and something would have to give way. Two lucky breaks came for the Ottomans which opened the floodgates for them.

The narrative is gripping as the scene of action shifts from land to sea and at times both at land and sea. Horrified onlookers from the wall and Galata, a nearby city, could see the action on the Ottoman side and were relaying it to the city powers. The anxiety of the citizens inside the wall shaken by the bombardment, cries and shouts outside and relayed news from onlookers has been vividly depicted.

On both sides leadership was exemplary and so were the fatalities and the carnage. The interplay of external forces like the strange weather (unknown to people then caused by a major volcanic eruption in Australia), the omens and portents and the prophecies assumed a potent force given the fatalism of the Byzantines. Both sides invoked their respective gods. The competitive edge was perhaps the use of gun powder by Mehmet on an unprecedented scale not seen before. It not only laid bare the medieval defence strategy of city walls but also had a tremendous psychological impact

There are many passages where the author recreates the war scene like an action happening in front of your eyes, the combat, the chants, the tolling bells, drums, cymbals and prayers rising in a crescendo. The processions, censers and fervent prayers add to the unbelievable drama happening near the wall and on the sea. One can get the feel of the event just like the spectators on the walls of the city or like those in the town of Galata, across the Horn would have seen and experienced.

I recommend this book to those interested in this event.

In 1453, Mehmet led his Ottoman army to Constantinople and began a siege against the city that ultimately ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in the east on May 29, 1453. 1453 briefly covers the centuries leading up to that fateful year and then covers the months leading to the final battle in detail. Parts were quite interesting while other parts dragged a bit. I recommend this book to anyone wanting to know more about the decline of the Byzantine Empire and particularly about its very end.

First of all the book is very readable. There are authors who can make even the most dramatic events look dull, but Roger Crowley evidently possesses a storytelling gift of a considerable proportions. The pace never slackens, before the crucial stages of the narrative there are contemplative pauses filled with sketches that feel very welcome and are artfully executed.

The only problem is that the author has some preconceptions – or came to some conclusions or adopted some opinions that are not supported by the facts and events he describes. Evidently, Crowley wants to come across as an impartial narrator, he is not tiring of telling about the Turks not being as cruel as we thought them to be and the Ottomans’ – relative – religious tolerance, but there are so many scenes of unbridled cruelty towards enemy and – which is even more important – of Ottoman court and army being reigned by terror fuelled by systematic executions and wild outbursts of killing rage that these tropes feel like something inserted.

Sometimes it feels that the data Crowley consumed was not yet digested properly at the time he sat at his writing table. The accents in this text are wobbly – a bit more than would have suited a complex panorama that has to leave a reader who is not a historian with some comprehensive ideas. Not slouching to simplification but still giving a reader something more distilled.

But having said that I repeat: that’s a book definitely worth reading and it’s really engrossing.

As a number of reviewers have already pointed out, the author of this book does an excellent job in chronicling the last days of the great imperial city of Constantinople before its fall to the Ottoman Turks. Crowley writes in a style that is both entertaining and historically accurate avoiding becoming partisan to one side or the other. The book not only details the events of the fall of Constantinople but also the main players (The Ottomans, The Byzantine king, the Latin rulers of Europe) And their involvement (Or lack of it) Crowley gives the reader background to the run up to the siege, the controversies between eastern and western church and also the repercussions of the fall of the city in both the Islamic and western world.

A down side to the book however is that it doesn't really cover much of what Sultan Mehmet did with the city after its capture. It seems to be rather rushed the last chapter as though he has exhausted all he wants to tell and just wants to end the book. Another down point is he uses the old Greek names for the gates and districts of the city. A few reviewers have pointed out that they have taken this book on holiday with them to Istanbul to help them to understand the city however without knowing the Turkish equivalents to the Greek names mentioned in the book I would imagine you would be stuck to say the least.

One other thing I should say however is that large parts of the book (Especially the events of the actual battle on the day of the capture of the city by the Turks) Seem to be taken almost word for word from Runiciman (The fall of Constantinople) Almost to the point that I had to get my old copy of that book and re-read it as I though I had just bought a new edition of that book!

For someone looking to get a highly readable and historically accurate account of the fall of Constantinople and wants to avoid the more excessive one sided books out there I highly recommend this book. If however you have Runciman's book you may not want to bother.

Roger Crowley is a superb narrative historian specializing in matters Mediterranean. He is especially adept at taking a "god's eye" view of history, incorporating everything now known about the events depicted, so the reader is often better informed than the participants were at the time. Normally, I find an approach like that lacks immediacy and keeps the reader very much apart from the story. Not so with Crowley, who gives us vivid characters from both sides.

The author also successfully overcomes another obstacle for historians covering the distant past. The siege and capture of Constantinople depicted here took place almost 600 years ago and often times getting at the truth means sifting through multiple layers of religious propoganda from Christian and Islamic writers. Crowley not only solves this, but he sometimes turns it to his advantage. For example, while we will never know exactly how Emperor Constantine met his individual fate, Crowley's summary of the multiple stores that surfaced is insightful.

I do want to remind readers that this is largely a book of military history. Some might want or expect more on the two culturs than clashed here. While 1453 focuses on a conflict between two armies of differing religious believes, the focus is pretty much on the fighting. While we get some more detail as to how Islam and Christianity differ, there is a higher level of detail in describing how sailed ships took over control of the sea from orred gallies, the development of gunpowder, and other military developments.

Crowley is more an heir to C.S. Forrester than Bernard Lewis, but this is the work of a serious, dilgent scholar, who just happens to be able to write swashbuckling history.

Like the city of Constantinople itelf, the events in this book are very complex. In his analysis of the seige, Roger Crowley skillfully follows several strings:

TECHNOLOGY
The Byzantines successfully defended Constantinople for centuries against repeated assaults from the Near East. When Arab forces seemed almost certain to take the city in 678, a highly-classified weapon called "Greek Fire" saved the day. Greek fire was essentially a napalm-like substance made from wet sand and surface oil found in abundance in certain areas along the Black Sea coast. When ignited and sprayed (with leather bladders) on an enemy ship, it almost guarenteed destruction of that vessel. Mastry of technology served the Byzantines well in the seventh century, but that lesson was not lost on the Turks. In preparing for the seige of 1453, the young sultan Mehmet invested substantially on new cutting-edge technologies: gun powder, and the latest metallurgical techniques to cast ever-larger cannons. In fact, Mehmet hired the services of a Hungarian master to cast him a bronze "super cannon", larger than had ever been attempted before (and which pushed the limits of the day's technology). His investment paid off handsomely, as the super cannon devestated the once-invincible city walls.
If things were bad above ground, they were just as bad below. Although mining technology and its military applications were well-known by 1453, Crowley spends considerable time describing the cat-and-mouse interplay between Mehmet's hired Serbian expert miners and the Byzantine counterforces. Turkish forces employed miners to weaken the foundations of Constantinople's protective walls, and to try to establish and underground route for Jannisary soldiers to enter the city. The Greeks fought back with their own miners, who would locate the Serbs and either enter their tunnels with deadly force, or (circumstances allowing) merely collapse the tunnels with the Serbs inside. I had never heard of Medieval mining warfare techniques before, so I found this part fascinating.
The maritime defense of Constantinople was no happier than the situation on land. Although cosmopolitan in nature, the city was culturally more Greek than anything else. As the original seafaring superpower, it seems natural to assume these Greeks would have primacy on the waters. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Maritime technology was on the cusp of revolution. Although small sailing and wind-powered vessels were well-known from prehistory, this technology was not easily applied to larger vessels. From the days of Thucydides, the dominant ships in both commerce and warfare were galleys powered by the muscles of men. Their superior maneuverability, and frequently superior speed, made them the preeminent nautical fighting platform. Alexander and the Romans had both ruled the Agean and the Mediterranean with oared galleys, and the Byzantines did not consider this model could be improved upon. Alas, the world was changing, and the Ottomans were changing with it, leaving the Greeks behind. Advances in maritime design were starting to produce sailing ships with speed and maneuverablility that could begin to compete- even eclipse the performance of the oared longboats. Unlike past conflicts, the Greeks no longer had the advantage of decisive naval superiority.

GEOGRAPHY
Edward Gibbon stresses over and over in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that Constantinople is uncommonly blessed with geographic features which favor the city's defense. That is one reason Constantine I chose the site to found his new Roman capital, in the mid 4th century A.D. It is surrounded on three sides by the waters of the Bosphorus, which itself is narrow, and surrounded by steep cliffs which make it relatively easily to defend. Past Arab assaults did not duely appreciate this, but the meticulous Mehmet recognized it. He neutralized the Greek advantage by constructing the "throat cutter" -a fortress at the north end of the Bosphorus, to control passage of friends and foes from the Black Sea.
In the more immediate theater of action, the "Golden Horn" inlet protects the northern shore of Constantinople... at least it always had in the past. A chain barrier had always prevented enemy ships from entering this region and posing a threat. In an inspired move, Ottoman forces undertook a massive overland portage to bypass the chain, and apply force at this weak spot. This diverted defensive forces away from the walls and ditch which compose the Western bulwark of the city- traditionally it's weakest area.
While the local geography favored the defense, on the larger scale it favored the offense. By the 15th century, Constantinople was a relatively remote outpost of Christianity and European culture (to the extent that "European" culture as an identifiable brand existed at that time). There were no natural political or military allies in the immediate environment. The time and resources needed to transport armies from Western Europe made alliances difficult to establish, and impossible to enforce, even as kingdoms as far afield as France and Spain appreciated Constantinople as a bulwark against Islamic intrusions from the East. They were simply never willing or able to offer material help to defend the city, when it was needed. Italian powers in Rome, Venice, and Genoa were both wealthier and closer, and they too acknowledged the Contantinople's continued well-being as a vital interest, yet contributed no aid when word of the seige came.

THE PLAYERS
Constantinople has been cosmopolitan in nature for as long as it has been on the map. It sits at the crossroads between Europe and Asia. It is the major commercial destination of myriad trade routes. It has existed in the spheres of Roman, Greek, Persian, Arab, Scythian, Egyptian, Venetian, Genoan and Ottoman influences. For centuries, nothing of any import went down in that city without affecting half a dozen or more nations. Naturally, this was never more true than at the seige of 1453. The destiny of Turks, Byzantines (Greeks), Venetians, Genoese, Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgars, Egyptians, Arabs, and the Christian authorities in the Vatican were all intimately tied to the Constantinople. When it fell, Venice and Genoa lost important trade franchises along the Black Sea shoreline. The Ottoman Empire, with its roots in Central Asia, would continue to ride the momentum for another 200 years, extending its empire as far inland as Vienna before it crested. Islam spread with force through much of Southeastern Europe, serving to, er, balkanize- the Bulkans. While it is true that Muslim forces (known then as Saracens) had penetrated as far as northern France in the 8th century, they never had staying power. Now, with a permanent military, financial, and cultural base in the European theater, the Ottomans were a longstanding force to be reckoned with, and would remain intact up to World War I.

If my review seems a disjointed or unfocused, please don't let that influence your opinion of the book. Crowley deftly covers these topics and much, much more in the fluid, comfortable narrative of a master storyteller. While the focus of the book is on a very narrowly defined set of events, Crowley's analysis spills over into many related subjects. The result is a "big picture" view of history, touching on the Christian-Muslim tensions over several centuries, internecine European struggles of the day, the history and significance of several evolving technologies, politics, commerce, and a microcosm of military strategies. In short, I feel like I've read several books after finishing this. Typically, something this information-dense can become tedious reading (again, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire comes to mind), but that wasn't my experience. In fact, this book went down fast, and was an absolute pleasure to read!

Fascinating and illustrative masterpiece by Roger Crowley (titled in 2005: "Constantinople - The last Great Siege, 1453"). It is written with passion and amazing dedication to micro/macro details. Thanks to this "1453.." reads like a movie.
We learn where the Turks came from and how these people achieved their greatness and power. We also learn how Turks embraced Islam and why Orthodox Church was separated from Rome.
Great history lesson that continues in Crowley's second book Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World.
I was mesmerized and could not stop reading. War and money. Quote from the book:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To carry out war, three things are necessary: money, money and yet more money"

-Milanese general Marshal Trivulzio (1499)-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wars requires slaves as well (or willing to fight and die). XVI century Europe and Ottoman's Emporium had unfortunately both.

"It remained inconceivable with Islamic theology that the whole of humankind would not, in time, either accept Islam or submit to Muslim rule."

This sentence sums up how scary the concept of "global jihad" should be to the Western world.

1453 is a very well researched chronicle of how Constantiople fell to Islam. The author weaves a compelling story of the main competitor's: Mehmet II vs Constantine XI the last "Roman" emperor.

If you are looking for an easy to read account of the clash of two civilizations you will very much enjoy this work. You will also be more informed about how this religious conflict is relevant to today's headlines.

An excellent and objective account of the Ottoman siege and world-changing conquest of Constantinople, Well written, attention-grabbing, and a welcome addition to any collection of works on the Ottoman Empire and Byzantium. Caution -- the paperback has small type.

I read this book several months ago. I waited until I had read Runciman's work, the standard book on the siege, to review this one. This seemingly forgotten book is a surprisingly good read. Although Crowley is not a historian and has a slight Turkish apologetic slant, the narrative of the actual siege is far better than Runciman's. He still believes the old myth that Greek fire was used in 1453, and much of his narrative of the events in the Turkish camp are pure speculation, and this is where he loses a star. Nonetheless, the plates are crisp and clear, the narrative is excellent and Mr. Crowley understands the physical geography of the city very well.

Read this in conjunction with Runciman's book, as they compliment each other wonderfully. Crowley has some important updates from 50 years of scholarship since Runciman's book was written, and has a far more detailed account of the siege, while Runciman's has the advantage of being written by a scholar.

Over the years, I must have read several books about the fall of Constantinople. I found this one to be the clearest, and most exciting of all of them. In many places, it becomes apparent how the author has actually walked the walls of the fallen city, touched the cannons that shot at them, walked the streets and churches where these events took place. He is fair to both sides, neither pulling any punches nor needlessly villainizing. He also has delved deep into accounts of the battle, bringing out both the courage and the bloodiness of Medieval combat, as well as the importance of faith in understanding this clash of Islam and Christianity. This book is well worth a read, to understand both the history of Europe and the Middle East, conflicts between the East and West, and the conflicts that continue to shape our world today.

If there is one book the interested reader needs to read about the siege of Constantinople, it is definitely this one! Crowley may not be a scholar, but his narrative seizes the reader by its realism and details in such a way that he or she will not be able to put away the book before reaching its end...In addition, his story is based on numerous contemporary sources, often written by eye witnesses. This is a wonderful book!
However, the book contains some imperfections that I will briefly outline here in the hope they will be brought to the attention of the author:
- Page 6: It is not true that "the name Turkey (was) unknown to them until borrowed from Europe to create the new Republic in 1923." For in 1908, a coup was staged against Abdul-Hamid II by officers belonging to a party called "Young Turkey".
- Page 11: the Caliph's name is Muawiyah, with just one y.
- Page 21: The name Rum is never used to mean Rome in Arabic. Ar-Rum is the name the Arabs gave to the Greeks.
- Page 175: There need be no uncertainty as to the date of the eclipse of the moon. Fred Espenak's site gives the dates and exact times of all eclipses from 1999 B.C to 3000 AD. This one occurred on the evening of 22nd May, 1453.
- Page 176, passim: "the haunting quartertones of the hymns" is a myth. To start with, there is no Oriental music that uses quartertone intervals: whole tones are flattened by one quartertone in some of the maqams(or modes). But even this is absent from Byzantine music, which uses plain Western modes, that can be played on the "white" keys of the piano...
- Page 185: the "shouts of the faithful" are certainly not as quoted! Muslims declaration of faith and battle-cry is :"La ilaha illa-llah, Muhammad rasulu-llah", which means: "there is no god but Allah, Mohammad is his messenger". The translation given by Crowley is his own invention!
- Page 217: Here Crowley is not to blame at all, since the mistake is in the Arabic saying of the Prophet at the top of the page. There is a diacritic sign which has been changed from the original, turning the meaning into "You will conquer Constantinople" instead of the correct "Constantinople will be conquered...". It seems this is the hadith that spurred the Muslim general Maslama bin Abdul Malek to attempt the siege of Constantinople in 717...

Although military history is one of my favorite subjects, books on military history often fall into one of two traps: either they lay out their subject in mind-numbingly dry detail, or they present an entertaining narrative at the expense of the facts. If you agree, then I can happily report that "1453" is a delightful surprise, for rarely do history books of any sort combine scholarship, good writing and a compelling story as well as this one. Roger Crowley weaves together a number of story lines - the Ottoman fixation with Constantinople, the various obstacles to cooperation between Byzantium and the West, and developments in military technology, to name a few - into a seamless narrative that moves forward as propulsively and inexorably as the Turkish advance on the great city itself. The writing is so good that even though I knew how the "story" would end, I found myself in suspense, as Crowley managed to convey a sense of immediacy and uncertainty about the final outcome until almost the very end. Despite the wealth of information provided (which is documented with endnotes), I also never found myself overwhelmed by data or bogged down in minutiae. Crowley unfolds the big picture clearly, yet without sacrificing detail about the various armies and personalities involved. Contrary to what a previous reviewer said, I also did not pick up any sense of pro-Islam or anti-Western bias. Crowley makes no attempt to gloss over Mehmet II's ruthlessness or the savage nature of the fighting on both sides. Constantine XI also comes across as one of the most sympathetic, if tragic, figures in the book. If you're at all interested in the fall of Constantinople, military history, or Islamic-Christian relations, you owe it to yourself to read this book. It's an epic story filled with memorable figures, and is unlikely to be better told than it is here.

A more technical treatment of the subject than Sir Steven Runciman's The Fall of Constantinople 1453 (Canto), but I have to admit that I prefer the style of Sir Runciman. What Sir Runciman neglected in detail, Mr. Crowley has provided. But, at the same time, there were points where Mr. Crowley seemed overly concerned with parallels to today (implied somewhat in the subtitle). Despite that minor criticism it is likely the very thing other readers will enjoy about the book. Mr. Crowley also recently did a fine article in Military History magazine concerning the fall of Constantinople and I would recommend that as well for thorough technical detail. This is a thorough and enjoyable work and an important contribution to understanding the last days of Constaniople.