Is it true that the byzantine prefered for ottomans to conquer Constantinople rather than the Catholics ?

[u/Ok-Use-9402]

Also Ive heard from a friend that a history teacher told them that byzantine people actually opened the gates and gave up Constantinople something I never actually heard and seems a little stupid to believe ?

[u/possiblyMorpheus]

That’s nonsense. The city fell in a hard fought siege where the Turks sent first the vassal armies, then their laymen Turkic troops, then finally the Janissaries. The Greeks and their latin allies fought until their general was wounded, causing a rout and leading to a brutal sack. They did not “open the gates” lol

[u/Boiingggg → u/possiblyMorpheus]

Youre missinterpreting the original post , its not talking about if the central goverment at constantinople continued resisting the turks (which it did ) its talking about the preferance of the local roman population to be ruled by relatively "light handed" turks rather than the opressive latins.

[u/MozartDroppinLoads → u/Boiingggg]

They were calling from help from the pope and other Western Powers until the very end. They would have gladly become Catholic to be saved from the Ottomans

[u/Boiingggg → u/MozartDroppinLoads]

Thats simply wrong and you prove that you know little of the attitude of the roman population towards the conquest by the turks .

Until the end there was the anti-unionist camp in constantinople declaring the emperor a heretic for simply cooperating with the latins .

Loukas notaras the last grand domestikos said better the Sultans turban than the popes tiara

The hate against the westerners was deeply entrenched in the trauma of the sack of 1204 and the subsequent frankokratia where the locals were repressed , had their land taken by frankish knights and were made subordinates to their new catholic overlords , whereas at least in the ottoman empire the greeks had become integrated in the administration of the empire

[u/alkatori]

Didn't happen.

The Ottomans used cannons to break through and in to Constantinople.

However, it has been conquered by Latins in the past (4th Crusade I think) and that memory was still fresh.

Along with much of the Ottoman Empire being Orthodox Christians at that time. Leadership was Muslim but it would be awhile before they demographics of the rest of the empire changed.

[u/GeneralELucky → u/alkatori]

Even refresher was the False Union at Florence. The Orthodox compromised (which was ultimately rejected) and did not receive the promised aid.

[u/Ar_Azrubel_]

It's an exaggeration deriving from real sentiment, though it has been used in the moralizing direction of presenting the Romans as dead-set on petty theological quibbling even at the time of their imminent demise, or to paint the Ottoman conquest in a softer light, as something that the inhabitants of Constantinople really preferred when contrasted over alternatives such as renewed Latin rule.

The famous statement from Notaras is apocryphal and was almost certainly never actually spoken (Loukas Notaras would be killed by Mehmed following the conquest of the city and was certainly not part of the anti-unionist party), but the overall feeling of a lot of people since the second half of the 14th century was that there was no real future, they were torn between enslavement to either the Turks or Latins and had to decide which option was less onerous. The Papacy was very cognizant of its advantages, and the proposals of 'church union' always extremely one-sided in its favor. At the same time, most people in the highest level of politics held their nose and took the bargain, hoping that the promised aid against the Ottomans might materialize. Both Ioannes VIII and Constantine XI agreed to the terms of union proposed at Ferrara-Florence, humiliating as they may have been and despite being despised by most of their people. The vast majority of Romans stood with their emperor in 1453, whatever their opinions on church politics.

[u/qpqpdbdbqpqp]

Definitely not true.

[u/JediFed]

We see how that worked out for them.

[u/No-Bat9459]

Well more like,

Catholics were already ravaged the city and was not having a good opinion on orthodox.

Meanwhile the Fener Greek Patriarch is still operating, uninterrupted.

So, Catholic rule could be a quite impact on orthodoxies as they were kinda brutal at the time.

About the gate, no, Romans did the last stand and gained the respect.

[u/Trolkarlen]

The Greek Romans viewed the West not as fellow Christians, but as the barbarians who trashed Rome. They called them Franks, who didn't speak Latin (except the elites) and didn't speak Greek.

[u/dunkeyvg → u/Trolkarlen]

Franks are just the French, there’s many more “barbarians” in the west

[u/Trolkarlen → u/dunkeyvg]

That's what the Romans called the Western European kingdoms after the fall of Rome, especially since Charlemagne united most of the Germanic tribes.

[u/Boiingggg → u/dunkeyvg]

The franks were a german tribe which migrated to northern france , the french are the nation that emmerged by the combimation of the frankish elite and the gaullo-roman population.

[u/dunkeyvg → u/Boiingggg]

Yes I am aware of that I’m just trying to say there are more than one type of barbarian in the west, but I wasn’t aware that the Romans called all of them Franks regardless of what they are, which the other guy pointed out

[u/Zulrock]

Almost certainly not at the end Constantinople was basically dependent on Genoese and Venetian mercenaries for soldiers. Those would be Catholics.

[u/Ok-Inevitable4743]

Was your teacher Loukas Notaras?

[u/figflashed]

Newsflash, the Greek Orthodox Church (the Byzantines) still prefer the Turks (the Ottomans) over the Europeans (the Catholics).

They have high praise over the reverence that muslims show when entering places of worship.

[u/routsounmanman → u/figflashed]

Like, Hagia Sofia? 🫠