"The Fall of Constantinople"

Paper Summary:

Few cities possess such a rich, varied and dynamic history as that of Constantinople, now Istanbul. The paper shows that Steven Runciman's history, entitled "The Fall of Constantinople 1453", is a flowing narrative detailing the years immediately before, during and after the "fall" of the city to the Ottoman Turks. Runciman's account is far from being dry; like a novel, the characters exhibit remarkably multidimensional traits. The paper examines how Runciman conveys the fact that the history and fall of Constantinople did not happen overnight and the transition from the Roman Catholic rule through Greek Orthodoxy, culminating with the triumph of the Muslim Turks, was a long, colorful and often bloody one.

From the Paper:

"Early in the book, Runciman offers reasons why his book differs from other accounts of the fall of Constantinople. His main gripe with common historical accounts, at least those published by the 1960s, was that most historians refer to the fall of Constantinople as the end of the Middle Ages. Runciman refutes this claim, stating firmly that the Middle Ages could not have just suddenly finished in one year; features of the Dark Ages, whether in politics, religion, lifestyle, or philosophy, remained after 1453. Likewise, Runciman notes that the Renaissance was well on its way in central Europe by the time Constantinople fell. Runciman claims that the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans solidified a Turkish capital in Europe, providing a European presence for the once isolated Eastern tribes."

More papers on "The Fall of Constantinople":

• Research Paper # 38233 : "The Fall of Constantinople"
• Analytical Essay # 4483 : "The Rise of Islam and its Influence on Rome and Africa"
• Research Paper # 66246 : "Greece and the Ottoman Empire ? Neither Assimilation nor Domination"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: