Byzantine–Ottoman wars

The Byzantine–Ottoman wars were a series of

Byzantine–Ottoman wars
decisive conflicts between the Ottoman Turks and
Byzantines that led to the final destruction of the Part of the rise of the Ottoman Empire and the
Byzantine Empire and the rise of the Ottoman decline of the Byzantine Empire
Empire. In 1204 the Byzantine capital of
Constantinople was sacked and occupied by the
Fourth Crusaders, an important moment of the
Christian East–West Schism. The Byzantine Empire,
already weakened by misrule, was left divided and in
chaos.[1]

Taking advantage of the situation, the Seljuk

Sultanate of Rum began seizing territory in Western
Anatolia, until the Nicaean Empire was able to
repulse the Seljuk Turks from the remaining territories
still under Roman rule. Eventually Constantinople
was re-taken from the Latin Empire in 1261 by the
Nicaean Empire. The position of the Byzantine Clockwise from top-left: Walls of Constantinople,
Empire in Europe remained uncertain due to the Ottoman Janissaries, Byzantine flag, Ottoman
presence of the rival kingdoms of the Despotate of bronze cannon
Epirus, Serbia and the Second Bulgarian Empire.
This, combined with the reduced power of the Date 1265–1479
Sultanate of Rum (Byzantium's chief rival in Asia) Location Anatolia, Balkans
led to the removal of troops from Anatolia to maintain
Result Ottoman victory
Byzantium's grip on Thrace.[2]
Fall of the Byzantine Empire
The weakening of the Sultanate of Rum brought no
Fall of the Empire of Trebizond
long-term advantage to the Empire, as nobles known
as ghazis began setting up fiefdoms at the expense of Rise of the Ottoman Empire
the Byzantine Empire. While many Turkish beys
Belligerents
participated in the conquest of Byzantine and Seljuk
territory, the territories under the control of one such
bey, Osman I, posed the greatest threat to Nicaea and Ottoman Beylik, Byzantine Empire
to Constantinople. Within 90 years of Osman I's then Sultanate (since
establishment of the Ottoman beylik, the Byzantines 1362 ) Despotate of the
lost all their Anatolian territory[3] and by 1380, Morea
vassals:
Byzantine Thrace was also lost to the Ottomans. By Catalan mercenaries
1400, the once mighty Byzantine Empire was nothing Serbian Despotate
Ottoman defectors
more than the Despotate of the Morea, a few Aegean
islands, and a strip of land in Thrace in the immediate Republic of Genoa
vicinity of the capital. The Crusade of Nicopolis in Republic of Venice
1396, Timur's invasion in 1402 and the final Crusade Kingdom of Sicily
of Varna in 1444 allowed a ruined Constantinople to
Empire of Trebizond
stave off defeat until it finally fell in 1453. With the
conclusion of the war, Ottoman supremacy in the Despotate of Epirus
eastern Mediterranean was established. Principality of
Theodoro
Contents Kingdom of Hungary
Papal States
Rise of the Ottomans: 1265–1328
Serbian Despotate
Byzantium counter: 1328–1341
Balkan invasion and civil war: 1341–1371
Byzantine civil war and vassalage: 1371–
1394
Fall of Philadelphia
Vassalage
Resumption of hostilities: 1394–1424
Ottoman victory 1424–1453
Causes of the Byzantine defeat
Latin intervention
Byzantine weakness
Ottoman strengths
Consequences
See also
Notes
References

Rise of the Ottomans: 1265–1328

Following Michael VIII Palaiologos' reconquest of Constantinople in
1261, the Byzantine Empire was left in a grave position. There was
plenty of talk among the Latin states of the Greek mainland and other
regions of retaking Constantinople for the Latin Empire[6] whilst to
the north the main threat came from Serbian expansion into the
Balkans by king Stefan Uroš I.[7]
East Mediterranean c. 1263.[4][5]
KEY:Dark green: Ottoman domain by
What was once a strong frontier under the Komnenian dynasty at the
the 1300s, dotted line indicates
Danube river now threatened Constantinople itself. To solve these
conquests up to 1326.Purple:
problems Michael Palaeologus began consolidating his rule; he had
Byzantine Empire.Light green: Turkic
lands.Blue: Cilicia.Red/pink: Latin
the younger co-emperor John IV blinded, which resulted in much
states resentment.[6] To counter this, the Byzantine Emperor installed a new
Patriarch of Constantinople, Germanus III, ordering him to lift an
excommunication that had been placed against him by the former
Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos and to submit to the authority of Rome in order to alleviate the Latin
threat.[6]As the Byzantine Empire continued the conquest of Latin territory, the Turks under Osman I began
their raids into Byzantine Anatolia; Söğüt and Eskişehir were taken in 1265 and 1289 respectively.[2] Michael
Palaeologus was unable to deal with these early setbacks due to the need to transfer troops to the West. In
1282, Michael Palaeologus died and his son Andronicus II took power. The death of the old Byzantine
Emperor came as a relief for the society at large; his policy of Latin appeasement to the Church in Rome,
heavy taxation and military expenditure placed a severe burden on the people. As the Ottoman Turks began
taking land from the Empire, they were seen as liberators of Anatolians and many soon converted to Islam
undermining the Byzantine's Orthodox power base.[8]
Andronicus' rule was marked by incompetence and short-sighted decisions that in the long run would damage
the Byzantine Empire beyond repair. He began to debase the Byzantine hyperpyron, resulting in a reduction of
the value of the Byzantine economy; taxes were decreased for the Powerful, i.e. landed aristocracy and instead
placed upon the Knight-class Pronoia. To popularize his rule he repudiated the union of the Orthodox and
Catholic Churches decreed by the Second Council of Lyon in 1274, thereby further increasing hostilities
between the Latins and the Byzantines.[9] Andronicus II took a deep interest in preserving the Anatolian lands
of Byzantium and ordered construction of forts in Asia Minor and vigorous training of the army.[9] The
Byzantine Emperor ordered that his court be moved to Anatolia to oversee the campaigns there and instructed
his General Alexios Philanthropenos to push back the Turks. Early successes were rendered useless when
Alexios staged an unsuccessful coup, leading to his blinding and the end of his campaigns. This allowed the
Ottomans to lay siege to Nicaea in 1301. A further defeat on Andronicus' son Michael IX and the Byzantine
general George Mouzalon occurred at Magnesia and Bapheus in 1302.[9]Despite this, Andronicus tried once
more to strike a decisive blow back at the Turks, this time hiring Catalan mercenaries. Under the guidance of
Michael IX and the leadership of Roger de Flor, the 6,500-strong Catalan Company in the spring and summer
of 1303 managed to drive back the Turks. The mercenaries' onslaught drove the Turks back from Philadelphia
to Cyzicus, in the process causing great destruction to the Anatolian landscape. Once again these gains were
thwarted by internal matters. Roger de Flor was assassinated and, in revenge, his company began pillaging the
Anatolian countryside. When they finally left in 1307 to attack Byzantine Thrace, the locals welcomed the
Ottomans who once again began blockading key fortresses in Asia Minor.[9]The Ottomans were able to build
on their military success due to the numerous divisions amongst their opponents. Many of the peasant classes
in Anatolia saw the Ottomans as the better master.[8][10]

After these defeats, Andronicus was in no position to send substantial

forces. In 1320, Andronicus II's grandson, Andronicus III, was
disinherited following the death of his father, Michael IX, the
Emperor's son and heir apparent.[12] The following year, Andronicus
III retaliated by marching on Constantinople and was given Thrace as
an appanage. He kept on pressing for his inheritance and, in 1322,
was made co-emperor. This culminated in the Byzantine civil war of Byzantine Empire at the time of
1321–1328, in which Serbia backed Andronicus II and the Bulgarians Andronicus III's assumption of
backed his grandson. Eventually Andronicus III emerged triumphant power[2][11]
on May 23, 1328. As Andronicus III consolidated his hold on
Byzantium, the Ottomans succeeded in taking Bursa from the
Byzantines in 1326.[2]

Byzantium counter: 1328–1341

Andronicus III's reign was to be marked by Byzantium's last genuine and promising attempt at restoring "the
glory that was once Rome". In 1329, Byzantine troops were sent to meet the Ottoman forces[13] who had been
blockading, and in effect laying siege to, Nicaea since 1301.[3] Byzantine counter-attacks coupled with the
scale of Nicaea's defenses had frustrated the Ottomans' attempts at taking any cities. The fate of Nicaea was
sealed when the Byzantine relief army was defeated at Pelekanos on 10 June 1329.[3] In 1331, Nicaea
surrendered,[3] resulting in a massive blow considering that it was the capital of the Empire 70 years prior.

Once again the Byzantines' military power was depleted and Andronicus III was forced into diplomacy as his
grandfather was before him; in return for the safety of the remaining Byzantine settlements in Asia Minor,
tribute would be paid to the Ottomans. Unfortunately for the Byzantine Empire, this did not stop the Ottomans
from laying siege to Nicomedia in 1333; the city finally fell in 1337.[3]
 Despite these setbacks, Andronicus III was able to score a few successes
against his opponents in Greece and Asia Minor; Epirus along with Thessaly
were subjugated.[13] In 1329, the Byzantines captured Chios and, in 1335,
secured Lesbos. Nonetheless, these isolated Islands were isolated exceptions
to the general trend of increasing Ottoman conquests. Furthermore, none of
the Islands were a part of the Ottoman domain; their capture demonstrates the
potential that the Byzantines had at the time of Andronicus III. Byzantine
military ability would be further weakened by Serbian expansions[13] into
recent acquisitions by Andronicus III (Epirus) and finally by a devastating
civil war that would subjugate the Byzantine Empire as a vassal to the
Ottomans.

The Ottoman Sultanate

Balkan invasion and civil war: 1341–1371
operated vast numbers of
skilled troops and Andronicus III died in 1341 leaving
conscripts. his 10-year-old son John V to
rule.[14] A regency was set up with
John Cantacuzenus, the young
Emperor's mother, Anna of Savoy, and the Patriarch John XIV
Kalekas. Rivalries between Kalekas and Cantacuzenus led to a
destructive civil war, in which Cantacuzenus emerged triumphant at
Constantinople in February 1347. During this time plague,
earthquakes[15] and Ottoman raiding continued until only
Philadelphia remained in Byzantine hands and only so by payment of The Balkans and Anatolia in ca.
a tribute. Throughout the civil war the Byzantines on both sides 1355. Byzantium has lost her cities
employed Turks and Serbs with mercenaries pillaging at will,[16] in Asia Minor and Macedonia and
leaving much of Macedonia in ruin and in the hands of the newly Epirus have been conquered by
created Serbian Empire. Following this victory, Kantakouzenos ruled Dushan's Serbia, while the nascent
as co-emperor with John V. Ottoman emirate has consolidated
its hold over Bithynia
This dual rule eventually failed and the two waged a new civil war
further diminishing what was left of Byzantium's integrity in the eyes
of her troublesome neighbors. John VI Cantacuzenus emerged triumphant once again and replaced the now
exiled John V Palaeologus with his son Matthew Cantacuzenus as junior co-emperor. However, the Turks,
under Osman I's son, Orhan I, now came into play by capturing the fort of Kallipolis (Gallipoli) in 1354[17][18]
and gaining access to the European mainland. The arrival of the seemingly unbeatable Ottoman soldiers
surrounding Constantinople caused a panic in Constantinople, capitalized by John V who, with the assistance
of the Genoese, staged a coup and ousted John VI Cantacuzenus in November 1354. As a result, John VI
would later become a monk.[17]

The civil war did not end there; Matthew Cantacuzenus now obtained troops from Orhan and began a bid for
taking Constantinople. His capture in 1356 ended his dreams of becoming Emperor and with it came an
ephemeral defeat for the Ottomans who had favored the overthrow of John V.[17]

Following the end of the civil conflict came a small lull in fighting between the expanding Ottomans and
Byzantines. In 1361 Didymoteichon fell to the Turks.[17] Orhan's successor, Murad I was more concerned
with his Anatolian positions. However, just like Alp Arslan of the Seljuk Turks, Murad I left the taking of
Byzantine territory to his vassals with Philippopolis falling after major campaigning between 1363–4 and
Adrianople succumbing to the Ottomans in 1369.[19]
The Byzantine Empire was in no position to launch any decent counter-attack or defence of these lands; by
now the Ottomans had become supremely powerful. Murad I crushed an army of Serbians on 26 September
1371 at the Battle of Maritsa[19] leading to the end of Serbian power. The Ottomans were now poised to
conquer Constantinople. In an attempt to stave off defeat, John V appealed to the Pope for support offering
submission to Rome in return for military support. Despite publicly confessing the Roman Catholic Faith in St.
Peter's Basilica, John V received no help. John V therefore was forced to turn to reason with his enemies, the
Ottomans. Murad I and John V then came to an agreement whereby Byzantium would provide regular tribute
in troops and money in exchange for security.[20]

Byzantine civil war and vassalage: 1371–1394

By now the Ottomans had essentially won the war; Byzantium was reduced to a few settlements other than
Constantinople and was forced to recognize its vassal status to the Ottoman Sultan.[21] This vassalage
continued until 1394. However, whilst Constantinople had been neutralized, the surrounding Christian powers
were still a threat to the Ottomans and Asia Minor was not under complete Ottoman control. The Ottomans
continued their thrust into the Balkans, proving to be great conquerors in Europe as they were in Anatolia; in
1385 Sofia was captured from the Bulgarians[2][20] and Niš was taken the following year. Other smaller states
were subjugated as vassals, including the Serbs. Serbian resistance was crushed at the Battle of Kosovo in
1389, much of Bulgaria was taken in 1393 by Bayezid I[20] (the Thunderbolt) and in 1396 the last bastion of
Bulgarian independence was wiped out when Vidin fell.

Ottoman advances into the Balkans were aided by further Byzantine

civil conflict — this time between John V Palaeologus and his eldest
son Andronicus IV.[20] With Ottoman aid from Murad I, John V was
able to blind Andronikus IV and his son John VII Palaeologus in
September 1373. Andronicus escaped with his son and secured
Murad's aid by promising a higher tribute than John V's.[22] The civil
strife continued as late as September 1390 though potential for Map of the Middle East c.1389.[2]
conflict continued until 1408. John V eventually forgave Andronicus Byzantium (purple) consists of little
IV and his son in 1381, angering his second son and heir apparent, other than Constantinople. Following
Manuel II Palaeologus. He seized Thessalonika, alarming the the occupation of Gallipoli, the
Ottoman Sultan in liberating parts of Greece from Ottoman rule. Ottomans (Dark Green) rapidly
spread across the Balkans, annexing
The death of Andronicus IV in 1385 and the capitulation of southern parts of Serbia in the
Thessalonika in 1387 to Hayreddin Pasha encouraged Manuel II northwest and giving them a major
Palaeologus to seek the forgiveness of the Sultan and John V. His advantage over their Turkic (Green)
increasingly close relationship with John V angered John VII who rivals in Anatolia.
saw his right as the heir threatened. John VII launched a coup against
John V but despite Ottoman and Genoese aid his reign lasted mere
five months before he was toppled by Manuel II and his father.

Fall of Philadelphia

Whilst the civil war was raging, the Turks in Anatolia took the opportunity to seize Philadelphia in 1390,
marking the end of Byzantine rule in Anatolia, although by now the city was far from Imperial rule. The city
had long been under only nominal Imperial rule and its fall was of little strategic consequence to the
Byzantines – whose Emperor had to suffer the humiliation of accompanying the Sultan during the campaign.

Vassalage
Following John V's death, Manuel II Palaeologus was able to secure his throne and establish good relations
with the Sultan, becoming his vassal. In return for Ottoman acceptance of his reign Manuel II was forced to
dismantle the fortifications at the Golden Gate, something that he did not take lightly to.[23]

Resumption of hostilities: 1394–1424

In 1394, relations between the Byzantines and the Ottomans changed for the worse and the war between the
two resumed when the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid (ruled 1389–1402) ordered the execution of Manuel II,[23]
after the Emperor attempted to reconcile with his nephew John VII. The Ottoman Sultan then later changed his
decision and demanded that a mosque and a Turkish colony be established in Constantinople.[23] Manuel II
not only refused this, he also refused to pay the Sultan tribute and went so far as to ignore the Sultan's
messages, leading to a siege of the city in 1394. Manuel II called for a Crusade, which came in 1396. Under
the future Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund,[3][24] the Crusade was crushed at Nicopolis in 1396.

The defeat convinced Manuel II to escape the city and travel to Western Europe for aid.[25] During this time
the reconciled John VII led the city's successful defence against the Ottomans. The siege was finally broken
when Timur of the Chagatai Mongols led an army into Anatolia, dismantling the network of beyliks loyal to
the Ottoman Sultan. At the Battle of Ankara, Timur's forces routed Bayezid I's forces, a shocking defeat for
which no one was prepared. In the aftermath, the Ottoman Turks began fighting each other led by Bayezid's
sons.[26]

The Byzantines wasted no time exploiting the situation and signed a peace treaty with their Christian
neighbours and with one of Bayezid's sons.[27] By signing the treaty, they were able to recover Thessalonika
and much of the Peloponnese. The Ottoman civil war ended in 1413 when Mehmed I, with the support of the
Byzantine Empire, defeated his opponents.[27]

The rare amity established between the two states would not last; the death of
Mehmed I and the rise of Murad II in 1421 coupled with the ascent of John
VIII to the Byzantine throne led to a deteriorated change in relations between
the two. Neither leader was content with the status quo. John VIII made the
first and foolish move by inciting a rebellion in the Ottoman Empire: a certain
Mustafa had been released by the Byzantines and claimed that he was Along with the humiliation,
Bayezid's lost son.[27] the Byzantine tribute to the
Ottomans of 300,000 silver
Despite the odds, a sizable force had mustered in Europe under his banner, coins would have been all
defeating Murad II's subordinates. Murad II's furious reply eventually the more difficult with the
smashed this upstart and, in 1422, began the Siege of Thessalonica and economy in decline.
Constantinople.[26][27] John VIII then turned to his aging father, Manuel II,
for advice. The result was that he incited yet another rebellion in the Ottoman
ranks — this time supporting Murad II brother's claim, Kucuk Mustafa. The seemingly promising rebellion
had its origins in Asia Minor with Bursa coming under siege. After a failed assault on Constantinople, Murad
II was forced to turn back his army and defeat Kucuk. With these defeats, the Byzantines were forced once
more into vassalage — 300,000 coins of silver were to be delivered to the Sultan as tribute on an annual
basis.[28]

Ottoman victory 1424–1453

The Ottomans faced numerous opponents between 1424 and 1453. Tied down by the siege of Thessalonika,
the Ottomans had to contend with the Serbs under George Brankovic, the Hungarians under John Hunyadi
and the Albanians under George Kastrioti Skanderbeg.[24][29] This resistance culminated into the Crusade of
 Varna of 1444, which, despite much local support and deception – a
peace treaty was unilaterally revoked by the Hungarians – was
defeated.

In 1448 and 1451, there was a change in the Byzantine and Ottoman
leaderships, respectively. Murad II died and was succeeded by
Mehmed the Conqueror whilst Constantine XI Palaiologos succeeded
John VIII. Constantine XI and Mehmed did not get along well; the
former's successful conquests of Crusader territory in the Peloponnese
The Ottoman Empire in 1451. By this alarmed the latter, who had since subjugated as vassals the crusaders
point all of Byzantium's major cities in the region, and Mehmed had around 40,000 soldiers sent to nullify
had fallen to the Ottomans who these gains. Constantine XI threatened to rebel against Mehmed
occupied almost half of Anatolia and unless certain conditions were met by the Sultan[30] regarding the
most of the Balkans status quo. Mehmed responded to these threats by building
fortifications in the Bosporus and thus closed Constantinople from
outside naval assistance. The Ottomans already controlled the land
around Constantinople and so they began an assault on the city on 6 April 1453. Despite a union of the
Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Byzantines received no official aid from the Pope or Western Europe,
with the exception of a few soldiers from Venice and Genoa.

England and France were in the concluding stages of the Hundred Years War. The French did not wish to lose
their advantage in the fight by sending knights and the English were in no position to do so. Spain was in the
final stages of the Reconquista. The Holy Roman Empire, never centralized enough behind the Hohenstaufen
to unite the principalities, had exhausted what could be spared at Varna. Further fighting among the German
princes and the Hussite wars seriously reduced the willingness of most to perform a crusade. Poland and
Hungary were key participants at Varna and the defeat there along with the Polish–Teutonic Wars kept them
busy and unwilling for further commitments.

Other than these major European powers, the only others were the Italian city-states. Genoa and Venice were
both enemies of the Ottomans, but also of each other. The Venetians considered sending their fleet up to attack
the fortifications guarding the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, thereby relieving the city but the force was too
small and arrived too late. The Ottomans would have overpowered any military assistance provided by one
city, even one as large and powerful as the Venetian Republic. In any case some 2,000 mercenaries, mostly
Italian under Giovanni Giustiniani Longo,[31] arrived to assist in the defence of the city. The city's entire
defence fell to these mercenaries and 5,000 militia soldiers raised from a city whose population had been
seriously eroded by heavy taxation, plague and civil conflict.[32] Though poorly trained, the defenders were
well armed with many weapons,[31] except for any cannons to match the Ottoman's own artillery.

The city's fall was not a result of the Ottoman artillery nor their naval
supremacy (many Italian ships were able to aid and then escape the
city). The Fall came about due to the combined weight of
overwhelming odds stacked against the city — outnumbered by more
than 10 to 1, the defenders were overcome by sheer attrition as well as
the skill of the Ottoman Janissaries. As the Ottomans continued their
seemingly unsuccessful and costly assaults, many in their camp began
to doubt the success of the siege; history had shown the city to be
invincible to Ottoman siege. In an effort to raise morale, the Sultan
The city's largest church, the Hagia
Sophia was converted into a
then made a speech[33] reminding his troops of the vast wealth and
mosque. Today it serves as a pillaging of the city to come. An all-out assault captured the city on
Museum of Constantinopolitan May 29, 1453. As the Ottomans fanned out to sack the city, their
legacy naval discipline began to collapse and many Genoans and Venetians
escaped in vessels from the city, including Niccolò Barbaro,[34] a
Venetian surgeon present at the siege who wrote:
 All through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city. The blood
flowed in the city like rainwater after a sudden storm, and the corpses of Turks and Christians
were thrown into the Dardanelles, where they floated out to sea like melons along a canal.

After the siege, the Ottomans went on to take Morea in 1460, and Trebizond
in 1461.[35] With the fall of Trebizond came the end of the Roman Empire;
the Palaeologan dynasty continued to be recognized as the rightful emperors
of Constantinople by the crowned heads of Europe until the 16th century
when the Reformation, the Ottoman threat to Europe and decreased interest in
crusading forced European powers to recognize the Ottoman Empire as
masters of Anatolia and the Levant. After the Fall of Trebizond also the
Theodoro in 1475 and with Vonitsa the Despotate of Epirus in 1479[36] were
conquered by the Ottomans.
Byzantium's last years saw

Causes of the Byzantine defeat the loss of recent territories

Latin intervention

The Latin presence in the Balkans seriously undermined the Byzantines' ability to coordinate their efforts
against the Ottoman Turks. This is exemplified by Michael VIII Palaeologus, whose attempts to drive the
Latins out of Greece led to the abandonment of the Anatolian borders which allowed several beyliks, as well
as the Turks of Osman I to raid and settle former Byzantine lands. Andronicus II's campaigns in Anatolia,
though it obtained some military success, was constantly thwarted by events in the west of the Empire.[32] In
any event, the Byzantines were forced to choose between Papal and Latin threat of attack or an unpopular
union, which was exploited by numerous rival claimants as cause for a coup against the Byzantine Emperor.

Nonetheless, towards the mid- and late-14th century, the Byzantines began
to receive nominal aid from the West. This was little more than sympathy
toward a fellow-Christian power fighting a Muslim power and despite two
Crusades, the Byzantines "received as much help from Rome as we did
from the [Mamluk] sultan [of Egypt]."[37] The Mamluk Sultanate in the 13th
century had been one of the most determined powers to remove Christian
influence in the Middle East and raiding by Cyprus did not change this in
the 14th and 15th centuries.

Byzantine weakness Romantic portrayal of the

"Last Crusader". Increasing
Following the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantines were left in an unstable Muslim victories, Christian
position. The capture of Constantinople in 1261 and subsequent defeats and European
campaigning did not come at a good time — the weakening of the Sultanate transgressions coupled with
of Rum resulted in many beyliks breaking away as autonomous states, such the Reformation and Counter-
as the Emirate founded by Osman I. Although this weakening of power Reformation led to the end of
gave the Empire of Nicaea a temporary free hand, it was nothing more than the Crusades.
a small respite not capitalized as much as it could have been.

In order to implement these Greek re-conquests, Michael VIII was forced to levy crushing taxes on the
Anatolian peasantry[10] in order to pay for the expensive army that modeled around the Komnenian army.
This led to much peasant support for the Turks whose system resulted in fewer taxes initially.
After Michael VIII's death, the Byzantines suffered from constant civil strife early on. The Ottomans suffered
civil conflict as well, but this occurred much later on in the 15th century; by that time, the Byzantines were too
weak to reconquer much territory. This is in contrast to the civil strife of Byzantium, occurring at a time (1341–
71) when the Ottomans were crossing into Europe through a devastated Gallipoli and surrounding the city,
thus sealing its fate as a vassal. When attempts were made to break this vassalage, the Byzantines found
themselves out-matched and at the mercy of Latin assistance, which despite two Crusades, ultimately
amounted to nothing.

Ottoman strengths

The Ottomans had great diplomatic skill and ability to raise vast numbers of
troops. Initially, their raiding gave them great support from other Turks near
Osman's small domain. In time however, as the Turks began to settle in land
poorly defended by the Byzantines,[38] they were able to exploit the
hardships of the peasant classes by recruiting their aid. Those that did not
assist the Ottomans were raided themselves. Eventually, the cities in Asia
Minor, cut off from the outside surrendered and the Ottomans soon mastered
the art of siege warfare.

It was the Ottomans' skill with dealing with their opponents that made them
very powerful very quickly. They would subjugate their opponents as
vassals rather than destroy them,[20] otherwise they would have exhausted
themselves in the process. The exacting of tribute from conquered states in
The Ottomans combined
the form of children and money was effective in forcing subjugation over
several different fighting
methods and technologies.
conquest. Coupled with this, the entire region was composed of many states
These Sipahis were exactly
(Bulgaria, Serbia, Latin states) who would just as soon fight each other as
unique for western knights the Ottomans and realized too late that the Ottoman forces defeated them by
due to their weapons and integrating them in a network of subordinate states.
battlefield experiments.
Consequences
The fall of Constantinople came as a shock to the papacy, which ordered an immediate counter-attack in the
form of a crusade. Only Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy responded but under the condition that a
powerful monarch assist him; however, none would do so.[39] Pope Pius II then ordered another crusade.
Again, no substantial efforts were seen by any of Europe's major leaders of the time. This forced the Pope
himself to lead a crusade. His death in 1464 led to the disbanding of the crusade at the port of Ancona.[39]

The Fall also had many implications in Europe: the influx of Greek science and culture into Europe by those
escaping the Ottomans was a crucial factor in catalyzing the European Renaissance.

The failed attempts at defeating the Ottomans at Nicopolis and Varna, the loss of the Holy Land (without
Byzantium the Crusades could not re-supply en route) and the lack of a genuine counter-attack led many,
including Martin Luther, into believing that the Turks were God's punishment against the sins of Christians:

How shamefully...the pope has this long time baited us with the war against the Turks, taken our
money, destroyed so many Christians and made so much mischief!"[40]

Nonetheless, by 1529, Europe began to rise to the threat of the Ottomans. Martin Luther, changing his views,
wrote that the "Scourge of God"[40] had to be fought with great vigour by secular leaders rather than as
Crusades initiated by the Papacy.
With the Ottomans' hold on Constantinople de facto recognized by Europe's lack of action, the Ottomans went
on to facilitate further conquests in Europe and in the Middle East. Their power finally reached a peak in the
mid 17th century. Their success through the Janissaries became their new weakness; conservative and
extremely powerful, Ottoman reform was difficult to implement whilst European armies became increasingly
more resourceful and modernized. As a result, Russian and Austrian attempts to contain the Ottoman threat
became more and more a formality until the official dissolution of the Empire after World War I.

See also
Byzantine empire
Ottoman empire
Ottoman Navy
Arab–Byzantine wars
Byzantine–Seljuq wars
List of conflicts in the Middle East

Notes
1. Phillips 2004.
2. Parker 2005, pp. 70–1.
3. Grant 2005, p. 122.
4. Madden 2005, p. 162.
5. Grant 2005, p. 93.
6. Mango 2002, pp. 255–57.
7. Mango 2002, p. 260.
8. Bentley & Ziegler 2006.
9. Mango 2002, pp. 260–61.
10. Madden 2005, p. 179.
11. Mango 2002, p. 41.
12. Mango 2002, p. 262.
13. Mango 2002, p. 263.
14. Mango 2002, p. 265.
15. Mango 2002, p. 266.
16. Mango 2002, p. 267.
17. Mango 2002, p. 268.
18. Madden 2005, p. 182.
19. Mango 2002, p. 269.
20. Mango 2002, p. 270.
21. Mango 2002, p. 264.
22. Mango 2002, p. 271.
23. Mango 2002, p. 273.
24. Madden 2005, p. 184.
25. Mango 2002, p. 274.
26. Sherrard 1967, p. 167.
27. Mango 2002, pp. 274–76.
28. Mango 2002, p. 276.
29. Mango 2002, p. 279.
30. Mango 2002, p. 280.
31. Sherrard 1967, p. 168.
32. Mango 2002.
33. Sherrard 1967, p. 169.
34. Grant 2005, p. 123.
35. Mango 2002, p. 283.
36. Fine 1987, p. 563.
37. Madden 2005.
38. Turnbull 2003, p. 12.
39. Madden 2005, p. 189.
40. Madden 2005, p. 193.

References
Bartusis, Mark C. (1997). The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society 1204–1453. University
of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-1620-2.
Bentley, Jerry H.; Ziegler, Herbert F. (2006). Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on
the Past (https://books.google.com/books?id=UZlMwwEACAAJ). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-
299835-1.
Fine, John Van Antwerp (January 1987). The late medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the
late twelfth century to the Ottoman Conquest
(https://archive.org/details/latemedievalbalk00fine). University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-
472-10079-8.
Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat (https://archive.org/
details/battlevisualjour0000gran_e3z7). London: Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 0756613604.
Laiou, Angeliki E. (1972). Constantinople and the Latins: The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II,
1282–1328. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-16535-9.
Madden, Thomas F. (12 September 2005). Crusades: The Illustrated History (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=5eudAAAACAAJ). University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-03127-6.
Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford UP.
Nicol, Donald MacGillivray (1993). The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=y2d6OHLqwEsC). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43991-
6.
Parker, Geoffrey (2005). Compact history of the world. London: Times Books.
Phillips, Johnathan (2004). "The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople | History
Today" (https://www.historytoday.com/archive/crusades/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinopl
e). www.historytoday.com.
Sherrard, Philip (1967). Byzantium: Great Ages of Man (https://books.google.com/books?id=jo4
ixwEACAAJ). Time-Life International.
Treadgold, Warren T. (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University
Press. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2.
Turnbull, Stephen (2003). The Ottoman Empire 1326–1699. New York: Osprey.
Vryonis, Speros S. (1971). The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: And the process
of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century. University of California Press.
ISBN 978-0-520-01597-5.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine–Ottoman_wars&oldid=1027828558"

This page was last edited on 10 June 2021, at 07:25 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.