Talk:Fall of Constantinople

Unit conversion

> weighing 500 kilograms (1,100 lb) over 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi)

If you do not have data that those projectiles which broke the Theodosian Walls were thrown for 1.497km (or so), and weighed 498.9kg (or so), then those "500 kilograms" are "1000 pounds", and "1.5 kilometres" are "1 mile" - because "500 kilograms" and "1.5 kilometres" clearly look like approximations

Serbians

There are no valid sources talking about 1500 imaginary Serbian Cavalry helping in the battle. Why has it still not been removed? Even if there were Serbs taking part in the battle they were taking part as Ottoman Janissaries.

Recent edits

@~2026-31685-36 please explain your opposition to my edits. You have reverted several notes that I added and got rid of new images and a new subsection.

You also said that I have made a "complete mess of the infobox", whilst reverting it to a state in which Ottoman casualties are said to have been "200–18,000[12] (first day) Heavy: 15,000–50,000 (disputed)"... I don't understand the logic. Anyways, I will revert again. Also, as a general rule, please remove only the things you disagree with and don't blanket revert everything. Thanks. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You completely removed older, higher estimates in favor of your own, newly added ones. I don't see you discussing this before your edits, which is why I changed it back. Casualties on the Ottoman sides were definitly more than just a low estimate of 3K. Even Ottoman and Byzantine historians would agree that a siege of at least 1 month long would cause much more losses on both sides. Your numbers and sources don't realy make a lot of sense. ~2026-31685-36 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is still not a justification for reverting my (and other peoples' subsequent) edits wholesale. The larger figures were removed because they are either outdated or outright false. Kaldellis (2026) says: "At the upper limit, therefore, Mehmed might have brought 60,000 soldiers to Constantinople, beyond which his camp also swelled with thousands of non-combatants and animals, making the army seem larger". I believe that having an infobox which states "100,000–130,000 in total (Western sources)[note 2] 40,000–50,000 in total (Turkish sources)[7][8] 60,000–80,000 in total (Modern sources)[7][9]" is counterproductive, don't you agree?

As to the Byzantines, the infobox said "30,000–35,000 armed civilians" took part in the siege based on the Britannica source, even though there were barely 25,000 to 30,000 people in Constantinople itself at the time. Kaldellis (p. 96) says: "Giacomo Tetaldi estimated that the population of the City was 25,000 or 30,000 men— presumably he means people—an estimate that is consistent with the latest scholarship on the question; he adds that only 6,000 or 7,000 were fit for combat".

In regards to the casualties, the 4,500 number for the Byzantine soldiers is simply not true. Nicolle (2002), a source which is cited to support that number, states that "4,000 Greeks died in the siege". Not 4,500 and not soldiers. In addition, the "Heavy: 15,000–50,000 (disputed)" numbers for the Ottoman casualties is unsourced. The infobox was a mess overall.

Obviously, all of this couldn't be explained in a tiny edit summary. Please don't revert my edits wholesale again and please at least read the sources. Hopefully, this clears everything up. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Huge error in numbers

Guys who changed the numbers??? Ottomans didnt had 60k soldiers nor only 3400 dead, they had 10,000 dead the first day, and whatsap t do you mean byzantines only had 8000 soldiers and 800 dead, completely untrue, change it to the old numbers, wich was 60-100k army, 30,000 killed, byzantines 9,000 proffesional and 30,000 armed civilians and 5,000 killed and wounded ~2026-32759-90 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a joke

Talk about wikipedia, they begging people for donations and then do this... Letting peasants change numbers as they please, thank god the majority of people nowadays don't take wikipedia seriously now ~2026-32759-90 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for the numbers you are claiming? ... discospinster _talk 22:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I do, i have read maybe 10 books about this particular siege, i visited all museums in Istanbul talking about it, I visited museums in Greece talking about the fall of their beloved city, in short, i've been to both worlds, and these numbers claiming the death count for both side is under 4,000 in military deaths is just pure fantasy, any historian in the world would disagree, it's an actual disgrace im fuming right now this is a real page, but nobody will take this page seriously anyway ~2026-32759-90 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree 4000 seems low but we gotta look at what the sources say. Of those ten books you've read, why not use some of them as sources to support your claims on actual military deaths? Masterhatch (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you actually want me to bring proof of why 3,400 military deaths is impossible?? I will do whatever you want if you bring me one historian telling you that casualty count from the Ottoman side. It was a 53 day siege, assault after assault each day, infantry assaults, against the most well defended city in medieval times, tripple layered theodosian walls, this calculates to 64 ottoman casualties each wave, oh come on man, it's laughable. ~2026-30925-50 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, i agree the numbers seem low. BUT! We need sources, preferably the reliable kind. Provide sources that give different numbers and we'll begin there. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Will you change the numbers if i provide sources to you on this chat? I'm not experienced in changing numbers on the page. ~2026-30925-50 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If your sources meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then you don't need me. Check out Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Masterhatch (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

So go ahead and cite any of those books. How do you think Wikipedia will be taken seriously if we just let anonymous editors change numbers any way they like? ... discospinster _talk 23:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)