Talk:Fall of Constantinople/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 29 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Fall of Constantinople → Ottoman Conquest of ConstantinopleOttoman Conquest of Constantinople – per Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point-of-view, and in line with articles such as Conquest of Ceuta. The requested move is also to a more specific title. إيان (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Clarifying rationale for request—

• "Fall of Constantinople" is no longer the "common name;" there is parity between "fall of Constantinople" (3,330 results) and "conquest of Constantinople" (3,140 results) in recent scholarship. Upon this, and per WP:NPOVNAME, "An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use." Ottoman Conquest of Constantinople is also more descriptive and encyclopedic, and Wikipedia avoids a common name is circumstances of "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious."
• There are other articles with "fall," including: Fall of Saigon, Fall of Kabul (2001), Fall of Kabul (2021), Fall of Singapore, Fall of Antwerp, but if Wikipedia discusses Western victories as "conquests" and Western losses as "falls," that's obviously not WP:NPOV. signed إيان (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit

• Why "fall" is not neutral, per Oxford English Dictionary:

- fall, n. 18. The failure, collapse, or ruin of an institution, organization, etc.(Sometimes hard to distinguish from sense 17a: The action or fact of being made to descend or of declining, deteriorating, etc.; descent from or loss of high (political or moral) status, good fortune, or the like; downfall.)

- conquest, n. I. Conquest by war or combat. 1. a. The action of gaining by force of arms; acquisition by war; subjugation of a country, etc.

"Fall" implies descent from or loss status i.e. there's a value judgment, while "conquest" is a more object description of the event. signed إيان (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose per commonname. Beshogur (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and prior discussion from 2019. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment An article title must adhere to Wikipedia's fundamental principle of WP:NPOV. Per WP:NPOVNAME, "An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use." Ottoman Conquest of Constantinople is also more descriptive and encyclopedic, and Wikipedia avoids a common name is circumstances of "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." إيان (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  You appear to be asserting that the current title is not the common name (as you quote WP:NPOVNAME: it must be the common name in current use (emphasis added) in your comment). Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  My assertion was out of optimism that modern scholarship and discourse generally represent less ideology and Eurocentrism and more diverse perspectives and specificity, and Google scholar results since 2018 seem to support my assertion:

  A search for "fall of Constantinople" yields 3,330 results while "conquest of Constantinople" yields 3,140 results—so it's quite close. إيان (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Why is "conquest" less POV than "fall"? The stronger argument for a rename is that the current title is ambiguous. The fall of Constantinople in 1204 was also a pretty big deal. Perhaps the most neutral title is Siege of Constantinople (1453). I don't see either "fall" or "conquest" as problematic, but there is precedent for avoiding "conquest". See Talk:Italian invasion of British Somaliland#Requested move 3 August 2020. —Srnec (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  There are many, many, many articles using "conquest" and I suggest this move in the name of congruity with them. Also, the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople was lasting whereas the example of the Italians in Somaliland was a military campaign of relatively brief tenure, where "invasion" is indeed more appropriate.

  For "fall" and "conquest," I've responded below. إيان (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am inclined to prefer on labeling it a "siege". While "conquest" can also work, using "siege" would not only be more correct in the sense that it really was a siege before the eventual conquest, it also helps us avoid (or mitigate at the very least) the risk of edit warring instances in the future. DreddLamok (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Commonname, prior discussion from 2019 and I have seen nothing from user: إيان, that would indicate "Ottoman Conquest of Constantinople" is NPOV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  As mentioned previously, the title Ottoman conquest of Constantinople is congruous with articles for similar events such as the Conquest of Ceuta, which is described as سقوط سبتة "the fall of Ceuta" in North African historiographies.

  If Wikipedia discusses Western victories as "conquests" and Western losses as "falls," that's obviously not WP:NPOV. What I'm seeking with this move request is some congruity. إيان (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I agree the current title is a bit POV-ish. "Fall" has negative insinuations, as some sort of cataclysm or failure. It is may be commonly used in Western sources, but they tend to see it from Western (Christian) perspective as some sort of "loss". But it not a "loss" from the Turkish perspective, but rather a "gain". However, it can be agreed from any perspective that something was indeed lost - Byzantium. This is not merely the capture of just another town, but the extinction of a notable, long-existing state. But I will support it because the proposed title is actually more informative and useful. That current title leaves me wondering if it is referring to 1204 or 1453. Walrasiad (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Prefer Siege of Constantinople (1453). Most neutral, factual and historical. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  This wouldn't improve the ambiguity that @Srnec: and I have identified. At 853 Google Scholar results since 2018, it's also far less common than both "fall of Constantinople" (3,330 results) and "conquest of Constantinople" (3,140 results). إيان (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The claim that the proposed title is more neutral is not credible; it merely substitutes a Turkish perspective for a European one, conveniently ignoring the fact that a milestone in Turkish history is also one of the key points in European and world history. P Aculeius (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Turkish" is anachronistic; the proposal is Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. The proposed title, in its congruity with similar articles such as Conquest of Ceuta, is both neutral and conforming with convention. It is also more specific and encyclopedic than the current name. The proposed title does not diminish from, much less "conveniently ignore," the role of the topic in European or world history, as P Aculeius claims without substantiation. إيان (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  Clearly you need to read, WP:BLUDGEON.--Kansas Bear (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. While the nominator is correct in pointing out some articles are titled '"Conquest of x" they fail to mention there are also many articles titled "Fall of y." See for example Fall of Saigon, Fall of Kabul (2001), Fall of Kabul (2021), Fall of Singapore, Fall of Antwerp and Fall of the Western Roman Empire. (Also, as others have said, the nominator has not explained why conquest is a neutral term and fall is not. As to the later-added common name "evidence" in the nomination, they still prove the current title is the common name.) -- Vaulter 16:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per others. Super Ψ Dro 17:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unnecessary, the NPOV argument is spurious ('Fall of Constantinople' betrays pro-Byzantine bias just as much as 'Fall of Berlin' betrays pro-Nazi bias), and the name is quite well established in English. Constantine ✍ 21:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Common name.★Trekker (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Common name. Alex2006 (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear common name. And also clearly not in contravention of NPOV, since the city, which was still ruled by the descendants of the people who established it, fell to another power. What's POV about that? It's a fact. Normally I'd agree with "conquest", incidentally, but not if the common name is something different. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Fall of Constantinople" is not the clear common name—as indicated previously, it has virtual 1:1 parity with "conquest of Constantinople" in scholarship published since 2018. Yes it fell, and yes it was conquered. What is not NPOV is how Wikipedia in English discusses Western victories as "conquests" and Western losses as "falls"—it's against WP:TITLECON. إيان (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  But that's not actually true, is it! You have mentioned Fall of Saigon (South Vietnamese loss to North Vietnam), Fall of Kabul (2001) (Afghan loss to other Afgans), Fall of Kabul (2021) (Afghan loss to other Afghans), Fall of Singapore (British loss to Japan, so the only one that actually is in this category), Fall of Antwerp (Dutch loss to Spain). There are plenty of other "Falls" on Wikipedia that had nothing to do with a Western victory and also plenty of "Conquests" that were non-Western victories. You're attempting (without much success) to cherrypick articles to claim that this is an NPOV issue, when in fact it's entirely a COMMONNAME issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translated event names

Hello Beshogur, could you please explain why this edit is an improvement to the encyclopedia? إيان (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think this is an improvement? Doesn't even look Ottoman to me. Beshogur (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for those translations? Is there a reason to include those translations? I'm generally only familiar with those templates being used to translate native language titles of published works, not for general names of historical events. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Addition to the In Popular Culture section

I believe it would be relevant to include a reference to the 2021 novel "Cloud Cuckoo Land" by Anthony Doerr (novel and author both with existing Wikipedia articles). Significant plot lines within the novel follow the lives of two characters on opposing sides of the conflict. David Worton (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@David Worton: I removed the section, actually, as the entries didn't meet the bars set at WP:IPC. I don't think this novel does either—thoughts? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Reference formatting

I've just edited this article to fix an sfn multiple-target error, and in the process noted that the article uses several forms of reference for "reused" sources with different page numbers: {{sfn}}, {{rp}} and unformatted shortened footnotes (e.g. this reference). Which format should we standardize on? If we reach a consensus here I am happy to do the legwork to convert the references to a common format. My personal preference would be {{sfnp}}, which is similar to the unformatted shortened footnotes but with a link, but the most used style in the article currently is probably {{rp}}. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Since nobody has chimed up here in a week and a bit, I shall go with sfnp. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Serbia, vassal of Ottoman Empire

• "Thus local rulers - whether Byzantine princes, Bulgarian, and Serbian kings..[..].. accepted the status of vassals of the Ottoman sultan" "The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922, Donald Quataert, page 26

• "The historical battle was probably a tactical draw, but Serbia's losses at Kosovo left it unable to resist the Ottomans further, so it became an Ottoman vassal...." --Serbia: A Modern History, Marko Attila Hoare

• "..Dubrovnik's annual tribute to the Ottomans rose in 1471 from 3,000 to 8,000 ducats. In addition to payment, vassals were expect to provide troops..." --"A Concise History of Serbia", Dejan Djokić, 141.

• "Bayezit's army seems to have been composed primarily of vassal troops, particularly those sent from Serbia." --"History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume 1, Stanford Jay Shaw, page 35.

• "...Serbia (though soon having to become a vassal state of the Ottomans) hung on as a principality for another half century." -- "Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s", ed.Norman M. Naimark, Holly Case

• "After the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 the remainder of Serbia became a Turkish vassal state..." --"East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500", Jean W. Sedlar, page 23.

• "To give a striking example, Stefan Lazarevic, the Orthodox Christian Prince of Serbia and an Ottoman vassal..." --"The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World, Baki Tezcan, page 88.

So much for "propaganda".--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct Calendar

All Of The Above Mentioned Dates ( May 29 ) Are According To The Julian Calendar Or The Gregorian? Because Its Nowhere mentioned and can cause a lot of confusion 157.38.149.133 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no Gregorian calendar prior to 1582. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"45,000–50,000 Janissaries"

What an exaggeration. How did Mehmed have such numbers? There weren't even such numbers in janissary corps' peak. Can someone find proper sources? Looks like such a mess. Beshogur (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

All household(kapıkulu) soldiers of Ottomans in 1453 is estimated at roughly 12.000 only half being Janissaries. All modern estimated also suggest at best 60-80.000 troops that Sultan was able to field in 1453. Mehmed himself operated during his many campaings at best 50 to 80 thousand troops lesser in minor operations. So you are right numbers need an update. 149.140.236.68 (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople Inaccuracy

Four days later, the whole city was blotted out by a thick fog, a condition unknown in that part of the world in May. When the fog lifted that evening, a strange light was seen playing about the dome of the Hagia Sophia, which some interpreted as the Holy Spirit departing from the city. "This evidently indicated the departure of the Divine Presence, and its leaving the City in total abandonment and desertion, for the Divinity conceals itself in cloud and appears and again disappears."

This paragraph is wrong. They thought they were being punished by god because the Hagia Sophia was being struck by lightning - the dome had copper at the top.

A severed head that was claimed to belong to Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos was found and presented to Mehmed and nailed onto a column. While standing before the head, the sultan in his speech said: Fellow soldiers, this one thing was lacking to make the glory of such a victory complete. Now, at this happy and joyful moment of time, we have the riches of the Greeks, we have won their empire, and their religion is completely extinguished. Our ancestors eagerly desired to achieve this; rejoice now since it is your bravery which has won this kingdom for us.

I believe this to be inaccurate and islamophobic. Destan Topalli (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Byzantien Rump States at the infobox.

I would appreciate it if User:Beshogur could explain here the reason why he keeps deleting this information from the infobox. All these small states were successors to the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire and are thus mentioned here as having survived a bit longer until their own conquests. Deleting this just because you claim that ‘’no one cares about it’’ is not a valid argument. Highly recommend you to first discuss this intead of edit warring. Woxic1589 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

So you find it appropriate to put conquests in 1460, 1461, 1475 and 1479 about a conflict in 1453? The page is about the fall of Constantinople in 1453, not Ottoman conquest of Byzantine Empire and its rump states. Beshogur (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

My point was that these were all the remnants/successor states of the Byzantines themselves. Its not a ‘‘irrelevant’’ thing at all to mention on this page/infobox. Woxic1589 (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It's irrelevant in that way since the page is only about the siege. 1460 is 7 years later. It's like calling WW1 is ended, but fighting continues in Anatolia. Beshogur (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It is quite typical to have sections for "aftermath" or "legacy" (as in this article) or otherwise touch on later events that provide context even if they are decades or centuries later. Many articles on Byzantine history link to this page as a sort of coda, so it may also be appropriate to discuss remnants and successor states here lest we put too fine a point on things. 1453 is the date people remember, but it wasn't quite the end of the story.

In any case, you should think twice and preferably have a discussion before removing an infobox or similar content someone else worked hard on based on your personal assessment of whether it's relevant or not. If something is error-free, appropriately cited, and broadly on-topic (ie. Byzantine history) it's not really appropriate to delete it outright without giving others a chance to explain its inclusion as you might simply not understand why it really does belong there. Unilaterally deleting things as off-topic or not notable can cause more problems than it solves, makes wikipedia a less welcoming place for new voices, and can even be considered vandalism. And, of course, edit warring to preserve contested changes rather than seeking consensus is never acceptable. Duxbag (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Byzantine Casualties and Losses

4.500–18.000 death https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0stanbul'un_Fethi İleriye Giden Adam (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

4,500 losses seem to be a very low estime, considering the Byzantine side had approximately ‘’7,000–10,000 professional soldiers‘’ and ‘’30,000–35,000 armed civilians’’. So, we could add that 18,000 as a second estimation for the number of killed (during and after the siege). Woxic1589 (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Tone problems and anti-Turkish bias.

This is a long article on an unusually complex and sensitive historical topic and I don't think some sections have been handled with appropriate care. It represents a watershed moment in European history, particularly Eastern Orthodoxy, which had its identity, institutional structure and relationship with Islam and "the Turks" permanently affected. Even after five centuries, the aftershocks reverberate and can reflect legitimate ongoing disputes but also have served as fodder for propagandist stoking ethnic and religious hatred and a "clash of civilizations" narrative. This article is not immune. Consider the following passage:

"By noon, the city streets were filled with blood. The Turks looted houses, raped and impaled women and children, destroyed churches, tore icons from their frames and books from their bindings. All that remained of the imperial palace in Blachernae were the walls; Byzantium's most sacred icon, the Hodegetria, was cut into four pieces and destroyed. The most monstrous events took place in the Church of Hagia Sophia. There, the morning service was already underway when the parishioners heard the maddened conquerors approaching. The huge bronze doors immediately slammed shut, but soon the Turks smashed them and entered the temple. The poorer and less attractive looking parishioners were killed on the spot, the rest were taken to a Turkish camp, where they remained to await the decision of their fate."

All of this is cited back to a single source, presumably Russian, about which I can say little as even the citation is in untranslated Cyrillic. We are left to guess whether such unencyclopedic language as "monstrous events" and "maddened conquerors" is original or the result of an overzealous translator, but either way, the tone is clearly not neutral and it is hard to read salacious and hyperbolic claims about rape-happy Turks slaughtering all the "less attractive" parishioners as anything other than regurgitation of racist tropes with the intent of stoking ethnic grievance.

Issues like the rightful ownership of the Hagia Sophia are contemporary disputes and need to be treated as such. Wikipedia must not allow itself to be weaponized to serve such agendas, yet that is exactly what happens when, for instance, an article frequently refers to Mehmed's soldiers as "the Turks" (despite many Ottoman troops not being Turkish) and seems eager to conflate the brutality and oppression of that empire with the modern Turkish republic and peoples.

Maybe the POV problems with this writing merely reflect the reality of a mostly European Christian user base reiterating old invective without adequate care. Maybe it wasn't intended to pursue a specifically anti-Turkish political agenda, reinforce prejudice, or rally the aggrieved faithful in defense of the Orthodox Church, or "Christendom" more broadly. But then, it wouldn't be the first time racists and Islamophobes tried to peddle such hate on Wikipedia. The intent doesn't really matter. What matters is that this kind of language doesn't belong here.

I welcome everyone's thoughts. This is a major article and I'd like more experienced editors to weigh in. Duxbag (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Duxbag Yeah, I came to the talk page immediately after reading that section. At a minimum, the language ("monstrous") isn't very encyclopedic in tone. Bgx14 (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

"Eastern Orthodoxy, which had its identity, institutional structure and relationship with Islam and "the Turks" permanently affected" I don't see how Eastern Orthodoxy is the victim here. Mehmed II gained the support of Gennadius Scholarius and the anti-Latin faction of the Byzantines. Per the main article:

• • "After the fall of Constantinople, Gennadius was taken prisoner by the Turks. In administering his new conquest, 21-year-old conquering Sultan Mehmed II wished to assure the loyalty of the Greek population and above all avoid them appealing to the Roman Catholics for liberation, potentially sparking a new round of Crusades. Mehmed II therefore sought the most anti-Catholic cleric he could find as a figure of unity for the Greeks under Turkish rule – and Gennadius as leading anti-Union figure was a natural choice. On 1 June 1453, just three days after the fall of the city, the new Patriarch's procession passed through the streets where Mehmed II received Gennadius II graciously and himself invested him with the signs of his office – the crosier (dikanikion) and mantle. This ceremonial investiture would be repeated by all sultans and patriarchs thereafter." Dimadick (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Dimadick. The sultan investing the patriarch is an excellent example of how Orthodoxy was changed. As for whether that represents a moment of victimization or shame or illegitimacy for the Eastern Church... well some people clearly get worked up enough about it enough to compromise articles like this. In Russia, there's the whole Moscow, third Rome thing so the "fall" of the second Rome is of immense political weight as well.

  It seems like we have consensus that this article goes a little hard on the Orthodox grievance side of things and needs some changes. We should avoid sanitizing horrible moments in history, but maybe we can find a description of storming the Hagia Sophia that doesn't read like a bad pot boiler. I'll start looking for stuff. Duxbag (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  I removed the quote, which sounded like someone took a quote from an old book and added it directly to Wikipedia. I'm surprised no one caught it being added in March 2024 (eek). Dushnilkin, do you have any information why you added that into this article? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)