Download The Last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologus, and the

The Last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologus, and the Last Ottoman
Sultan, Mehmed VI Vahideddin
Kent: Is this the promis’d end?
Edgar: Or image of that horror?
Albany: Fall and cease.
Lear: This feather stirs, she lives: if it be so,
It is a chance which does redeem all sorrows
That ever I have felt.
William Shakespeare, King Lear, Last Scene.
In Turkey the conventional view of the last sultan of the Ottoman Empire (1299-1922) as a
traitor who tried to obstruct the National Movement is rarely questioned. Likewise, very little
attention is given to the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire (330-1453) and the last days
behind the walls of the besieged city of Istanbul (Constantinople).
Many tragedies revolve around a turn of fortunes. The tragic ends of the last two monarchs
can be seen as in some ways mirroring the final days of the two empires which shared the
same capital city between East and West. Furthermore, the term “othering”, derived from the
philosophical concept of the Other, can be used to describe the way the besieged Byzantine
city, its last emperor and the last Ottoman sultan are remembered. Indeed, enemy or traitor,
little or no interest is shown in “others”. If it were, othering could cease to be.
With these considerations in mind, I shall be looking at both the last Byzantine emperor and
the last Ottoman sultan. A brief glance at the years before and after they came to the throne
and at their final days in Istanbul will be followed by closer observation in the last section. I
shall be focussing on the following: the formidable resistance by the emperor and his people
during and on the last day (29 May 1453) of the siege of their city; the relations between the
last Ottoman sultan, the governments he appointed and the National Movement, which were
not simply hostile and which require more research and clarification.
The Early Years
The last Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Dragases Palaeologus was born in Istanbul on 8
February 1405, the fourth of the six children of Manuel II Palaeologus and Helena Dragas.
1
Although there is little information about his early years, we know that they were spent
mainly in Istanbul and that he liked to be called Dragases because of his attachment to his
mother. He has been portrayed as a brave prince with administrative skills, who enjoyed
hunting, horse-riding and martial arts.
In 1422, at the age of seventeen, Constantine witnessed the siege of Istanbul by the Ottoman
sultan Murad II. In 1928, he went to Morea, governing the despotate for twenty years with his
brothers Theodore and Thomas. Byzantine rule was established in the area after ceaseless
wars, but Murad II could not be checked. Following his victory at the Battle of Varna in 1446,
he occupied the area. Constantine and his brothers became his vassals and were forced to pay
him tribute. The siege of Varna, with days of heavy artillery fire followed by Ottoman
soldiers entering the city through its walls, can be viewed as a precursor to the siege of
Istanbul seven years later.
Constantine married twice. Both his wives died and he had no children. As his brother
Emperor John VII Palaeologus died childless, he was next in line, being the oldest living
brother. Although his brothers Demetrios and Thomas also had claims on the throne,
Constantine had the support of his mother, Empress Helena.
On 6 January 1449, when he was crowned in Mistra, the capital of Morea, Byzantium was no
longer the once powerful empire, but was confined to Istanbul and the areas immediately
surrounding it.1
***
The last Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed VI Vahideddin, was born in Istanbul on 2 February 1861.
His father, Sultan Abdülmecid II, and mother, Gülustu Kadın Efendi, died when he was a
child. Former sultans Murad V, Abdülhamid II and Mehmed VI Reşad were his brothers.
Forty years of his life were spent at Çengelköy Palace. There, he enjoyed reading, writing,
fıkıh (Muslim canonical law) and music. Like many other Ottoman sultans, he was also a
composer. Courteous in private life, he was discreet and avoided flattering words in official
relationships. He has also been described as intelligent and perceptive. He had three daughters
and a son from his four marriages.
Mehmed Vahideddin became heir to the throne when his uncle Sultan Abdülaziz’s son, Yusuf
İzzeddin, committed suicide in 1916. Before this, there had been the suspicious suicide of
Sultan Abdülaziz after he was dethroned in 1876, followed by, within three months, Sultan
Murad V’s deposition, then Sultan Abdülhamid’s dethronement and subsequently the
Committee of Union and Progress’s assumption of full power during the next sultan’s
(Mehmed Reşad) reign (1909 -18).
As crown prince, he travelled abroad twice: to Germany with Mustafa Kemal as his aide and
to Vienna for the funeral of the Emperor of Austria-Hungary.
On 3 July 1918, upon the death of his brother Sultan Mehmed V Reşad, Vahideddin came to
the throne He was fifty-seven years old. As a result of the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, the
Ottoman Empire, once a great power, had lost a very large part of its territory in Europe. The
Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, Türkiye Ekonomik veToplumsal Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, 1993-5.
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2008 Ultimate Reference Suite, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 2008. The Oxford
Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991. Donald M. Nicol, The Immortal Emperor,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002,pp. 2-5, 30.
1
2
First World War (1914 -18), was coming to an end. The immense poverty, suffering and loss
of four years2 had included the deportation and massacre (1915 -16), also described as The
Great Calamity and genocide, of a very large section of the Armenian population, a prominent
community in the Ottoman Empire.
The Last Years
The centuries-long theological and liturgical disputes between Rome and Byzantium led in
1054 to the formal separation of Western and Eastern churches. At the Ferrera-Florence
Council of 1438-39, the Great Schism was officially to end with the adoption of the Union of
Churches, whereby the Eastern Orthodox Church acknowledged the authority of the Western
Catholic Church. However, a very significant number of Byzantines opposed the union. In
order to avoid riots against the Union of Churches, the traditional coronation ceremony at
Saint Sophia (Hagia Sophia-Holy Wisdom) was not held for Constantine XI. He was instead
crowned in Mistra. Meanwhile, when, in 1451, Mehmed II became sultan for the second time,
upon the death of his father, Murad II, Ottoman aspirations for the conquest of Istanbul
became more overt. Effective resistance needed the support of the West and this, in turn,
depended upon the establishment of the Union of Churches. Although he did not state it
explicitly, Constantine seemed in practice to have consented to the union.
In September1452, in spite of Constantine’s strong opposition, the construction of Rumeli
Hisarı (Rumelian Castle) - Boğazkesen (The Strait Cutter) - was completed by Sultan
Mehmed II opposite the Anatolian Castle built in 1395 by Bayezid I. It meant the loss of
control of passage through the Bosphorus (Boos-Foros) and of food supplies to Istanbul from
the North.
Urban, a Hungarian, who was soon to build cannons for the Ottoman siege of Constantinople
more powerful than any ever seen before, had first approached the Byzantines. They had not
been in a position to pursue his offer.3
In an effort to defend the city, the Emperor was sending envoys to the West requesting
military aid. It never came in sufficient quantities. He was also attempting to get food supplies
through the Agean Sea (Aiagaion Pelagos).
The city walls were carefully checked and repaired.4 The six km-long Land (Theodosius)
Walls, which formed an arch between the Marmara Sea (Propontis) and the Golden Horn
(Hrisokeras), and the fourteen km-long Sea Walls were the strongest aspect of the defence of
the city. Even though Istanbul had come under attack and had been besieged more than any
other city,5 the Land Walls had never been breached. Only the Crusaders, as representatives of
Western Christianity, had entered the city in 1204 through the Sea Walls in the Golden Horn.
Following this calamitous blow to relations between Eastern and Western Christianity, when
Istanbul was captured and ransacked, the Crusaders controlled the city for fifty-seven years,
with the Byzantine government withdrawing to İznik (Nicea).
Yaşamları ve Yapıtlarıyla Osmanlılar Ansiklopedisi, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2008. Dünden Bugüne
İstanbul Ansiklopedisi. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Yılmaz Çetiner, Son Padişah Vahideddin, Epsilon Yayıncılık,
İstanbul, 2006, 20-24. Murat Bardakçı, Şahbaba, Pan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 1998, 35-43.
3
Mark C. Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army, Arms and Society, 1204-1453, University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, 1992, 123.
4
Roger Crowley, Constantinople, The Last Great Siege of 1453, Faber and Faber, London, 2006, 75.
5
Philip Mansel, Constatinople, City of the World’s Desire, 1453-1924, John Murray, London, 1996, 3.
2
3
Between 5th and 7th April 1453, the full strength of the Ottoman army took up its position just
a kilometre and a half away from the Land Walls. Excluding volunteers, it totalled between
seventy and one-hundred-thousand. Sixteen Ottoman warships were anchored in the Marmara
Sea.
Istanbul’s population was between forty and fifty-thousand. It had between six and seventhousand defenders and twenty-six warships. In addition, there were the seven-hundred elite
soldiers of Giovanni Giustiniani Longo, a renowned Genoese commandant, who had arrived
with them in Istanbul in January. Longo specialized in the defence of walled cities and was
placed in command of the Land Walls by the Emperor.6 Süleyman Çelebi’s grandson Orhan,
who had taken refuge in Byzantium, was among the defenders with his men.
Just as the defenders had Muslims in their ranks, the Ottoman army included non-Muslim
soldiers
***
When Mehmed VI came to the throne, the war was about to end in defeat. Apart from the
first four months of his four years as sultan, Istanbul, the capital, was under occupation.
On coming to the throne he said, “If I did not have any hope of serving my country, I would
not take on this huge burden but would have continued to live in comfort in Çengelköy. At
this age, I have no ambition to have the title Sultan inscribed on my headstone”.7 Mehmed
VI’s policies included popular ones and raised expectations, especially among the people of
Istanbul. For instance, he changed the title of Enver Paşa from Acting Commander in Chief
to Chief of Staff, as officially the sultan himself was the Commander in Chief. He required
that he should be informed about all government matters and decisions and demanded that, as
in the past, the sultan’s signature should be at the top and not at the bottom of decrees. His
popularity was further increased by his visits to the districts of Istanbul which had recently
suffered from great fires.8 The Union and Progress government was being held responsible
both by him and by the people for what the country had been suffering. On 8 October 1918,
upon his demand, they resigned. Thus began the period of a total of eleven Istanbul
governments formed by grand viziers appointed by the sultan.9
Two days after the Armistice of Mudros (30 October) between the Ottoman Empire and the
Allies was signed, the three leaders of the Union of Progress and Unity government left the
country on a German submarine. On 13 November, the Allied powers occupied Istanbul.
Their fleet of fifty-five warships anchored in the Marmara Sea. This was to make Istanbul the
only European capital under occupation between the Napoleonic Wars and the II. World War
and Mehmed VI, a sultan in a city under the control of occupation forces.
During the four-year period between the Armistice of Mudros and the Armistice of Mudanya
(11 October 1922), relations between Istanbul and the National War leaders were not
straightforward. The governments formed by grand viziers appointed by Sultan Vahideddin
included five headed by Damat Ferit Paşa serving for a total of just thirteen months, the last
Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988, 83 – 84
Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi.
8
Ahmet İzzet Paşa, Feryadım, Nehir Yayınları, İstanbul, 1993, 7-8.
9
Stanford J. Shaw, From Empire to Republic, The Turkish War of National Liberation, 1918-1923, A
Documentary Study, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 2000, Appendix 1
6
7
4
one between 31 July-17 October 1920, and six formed by grand viziers who, unlike Ferit
Paşa, sympathised with, or at least did not oppose, the National Movement, serving for a total
of nearly three years. Mustafa Kemal, whom the sultan knew personally from their visit to
Germany as crown prince and aide, was appointed as Inspector of the Ninth Army and left
Istanbul on16 May 1919. However, two months later (8 July) he was recalled. When he
resigned from the army, his medals and insignia were taken back (9 August 1919), but
returned on 3 February 1920. When the Ottoman Parliament opened on 12 January 1920,
cordial telegrams were exchanged between the sultan and Mustafa Kemal. The year before,
messages of loyalty to the sultan had been issued when congresses assembled in Erzurum (23
July 1919) and Sivas (4 September 1919). Ahd-ı Milli, the National Oath or the National Pact
(Misak-ı Milli) as it was later known, was formulated at Erzurum and Sivas and adopted by
the Ottoman Parliament (28 January 1920). On 16 March 1920, the Allies can be said to have
“reoccupied” Istanbul. On 11 April, the Ottoman parliament was dissolved and on 23 April,
the Grand National Assembly of Turkey convened in Ankara with the participation of the
members of the dissolved Ottoman Parliament. Kuvayı İnzibatiye (the Forces of Order or
Caliphate Army), founded on 18 April, was abolished two months later. On 24 April, Mustafa
Kemal announced that the aim of the National Movement was to rescue the captive sultan. He
added that, even if he were to hear it from the sultan himself, he would still think the fatwa of
10 April had been issued under duress. In the fatwa, members of the Kuvayı Milliye (National
Forces) were described by the Şeyhülislam (the chief religious official) as infidels to be
killed.10 The Treaty of Sevres was signed on 10 August 1920, a year after the Greek Army
had begun to advance through Western Anatolia in the summer of 1919. It was rejected by the
Grand National Assembly. Neither was it endorsed by the sultan. Representatives of both
Ankara and Istanbul took part in the Conference of London (21 February -12 March 1921),
which aimed at amending the Treaty of Sevres in favour of Turkey, but which ended in
failure. At the conference, Ahmet Tevfik Paşa, the Grand Vizier of the last Ottoman
Government (21 October 1920-4 November 1922) waived his right to speak in favour of
Ankara. Ahmet Tevfik Paşa was the longest serving grand vizier of Sultan Vahideddin. He led
three governments for a total period of two years and fifteen days. Another move in his policy
of cooperating with Anatolia was to send Ahmet İzzet Paşa and Salih Paşa to Ankara for
negotiations. However, their stay in Ankara (November1920-March 1921) proved fruitless. In
another attempt at cooperation, on 26 April 1921, the sultan’s son-in-law, Crown Prince
Abdülmecid’s son Prince Ömer Faruk, left Istanbul to join the National Movement, but,
following opposition from Ankara, had to return after reaching only as far as İnebolu..11 The
First Battle of İnönü (9-11 January 1921), the Second Battle of İnönü (27 March-1 April
1921), the Battle of Sakarya (23 August-13 September 1921) and finally the Great Offensive
(26 August- 9 September 1922) led to the Armistice of Mudros (11 October 1922), which
brought an end to the Greek occupation of Anatolia. In Istanbul, these victories were
celebrated with rallies, prayers and aid campaigns. When the Grand National Assembly had
called for aid at the start of the Great Offensive, the sultan was among those who made
contributions.12
Bardakçı, 145-147, 157-158. Gotthard Jaeschke, Türk Kutruluş SavaşıKronolojisi, Mondros’tan Mudanya’ya
Kadar (30 Ekim 1918-11 Ekim 1922), Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1989, 85
11
Bardakçı, 202. Turgut Özakman, Vahidettin, M. Kemal ve Milli Mücadele, Yalanlar, Yanlışlar, Yutturmacalar,
Bilgi Yayınevi, 375-382.
12
Metin Ayışığı, “30 Ağustos Zaferi ve İstanbul’daki Yankıları”, Tarih ve Toplum, İletişim, cilt 18, sayı 105,
(Eylül 1992), 41-49
10
5
The Last Days
The Ottoman Army had by 7 April taken up its position outside the land walls and started
bombarding the city with artillery cast by Urban. For the emperor and everyone else inside the
walls of the city, what lay ahead was now all too clear.13
Outside the walls, during the first ten days of April, the towers in Büyükada (Prinkipo),
Tarabya (Therapia) and Studius were seized and occupied.14 As a result, Istanbul’s links with
the outside world suffered a further blow. Nevertheless, three Genoese ships with supplies and
arms sent by the Pope managed to break through the blockade and reach the city (20 April).
Delayed by a storm in the Aegean, they had been expected for weeks.
The defenders were striving to repair the damaged land walls, particularly those near Topkapı
(the Gate of Romanos) in Bayrampaşa (the valley of the river Lycus) which had been
breached by continuous Ottoman bombardment. They were also struggling to prevent
infiltration through the walls or the chain protecting the Golden Horn. On 22 April, they were
terrified to see that the Ottomans had dragged their ships overland through the hills of Galata
and Kasımpaşa (Pegai-the Valley of Springs) and anchored them inside the chain. They
attempted to set fire to them, but were unsuccessful.15 Thus the firing line encircling the city
extended to include this critical position in the Golden Horn. Furthermore, the defenders had
to guard against the tunnels the Ottomans were digging and the mobile wooden towers they
were constructing.
Meanwhile, the emperor asked churches in the city to increase their contributions to the
diminishing food supplies. Effective defence depended also on overcoming other difficulties:
the Genoese of Galata tended to remain neutral and the discontent of those who had not yet
accepted the Union of Churches continued.
A brigantine which had breached the blockade and left the city for news of the expected aid
returned weeks later (23 May). When taken inside the Golden Horn, once more breaching the
blockade, it was mistakenly believed to be the forerunner of aid.
In the last days of the siege, during religious processions, in which nearly the whole populace
took part, the holiest icon of the Mother of God fell from its platform. Next, the procession
was curtailed by thunder-storms, torrential rain and floods. Accounts of the final days also
describe the whole city being shrouded under a heavy fog; when it lifted, a strange light
appeared over Saint Sophia, disconcerting also the Ottomans. This eclipse of the moon had
cast the city into complete darkness. The Byzantines believed that God was denying them his
help because they were under his curse and their spirits were further lowered.16
Meanwhile, Emperor Constantine rejected Sultan Mehmed’s call to give in and surrender the
city.17
13
Runciman, 79.
Crowley, 111-112
15
Runciman, 106-108.
16
Runciman, 120-121. Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, Princeton University Press, New Jersey,
1954, 58-59.
17
Crowley, 182-183.)
14
6
On 28 May, there was an unusual silence outside the walls as the Ottoman army rested and
prayed before their full-scale assault. The silence was broken by the sound of church bells
inside the walls. The emperor addressed his people and soldiers, asking them to remain
steadfast and be ready to die. He told them he was himself prepared to die. The Byzantines,
who had never entirely settled their differences about the Union of Churches, met at Saint
Sophia that night and prayed together. Later, the emperor toured the walls, inspecting them
for the last time.18
On Tuesday 29 May, a little after midnight, the expected Ottoman offensive began in huge
successive waves from land and sea, accompanied by the sounds of drums and tekbir (God is
Great). Giovanni Giustiniani Longo, the commandant of the Land Walls, was defending the
area around Topkapı which had been breached by artillery fire. Just before dawn, he was
wounded and had to leave his post. Demoralized, his men followed him. By that time, fighting
was hand-to-hand and the Ottomans had entered the city not just through Topkapı, but also
through the Belgrade Gate (Xylokerkos Gate) at the open Kerkoporta point.
Emperor Constantine XI Palaeologus had tried unsuccessfully to persuade Giustiaiani Longo
not to leave his post. When there was also bad news from Kerkoportal, he rushed there. After
that, he went towards the damaged walls by the Bayrampaşa valley to try to call together the
defenders. Finally, he took off his regalia and, with three others, disappeared among the
surging Ottoman soldiers. He was not seen again.19
***
Only Ankara took part in the armistice negotiations with the Allies, which started in Mudanya
on 3 October 1922. Eight days after the signing of the Armistice (19 October 1922), Refet
Paşa arrived in Istanbul as the representative of Ankara to take over the government there. He
met the sultan on 29 October, informing him that Ankara was considering the abolition of the
Sultanate, but not the Caliphate. He also instructed the sultan not to receive any visitors and to
dismiss the Istanbul government, recognizing the government in Ankara. The sultan rejected
these demands also, saying that the caliphate without the sultanate would be unacceptable to
any member of the Ottoman Dynasty.20
On the same day, Grand Vizier Tevfik Paşa appealed to the Grand National Assembly to work
on a common policy for the Lausanne Conference as both the Ankara and Istanbul
governments had been invited.21 The next day, there was heavy criticism of the sultan at the
Grand National Assembly, which ruled that he, together with the members of the Istanbul
government, should be tried and punished. On 1 November 1922, a bill was passed to separate
the Sultanate from the Caliphate and to abolish the former. The abolition of the Sultanate
would be valid retroactively from two and a half years before, when Istanbul had been
occupied by the Allies for the second time (16 March, 1920).
On November 4, the government of Grand Vizier Tevfik Paşa resigned. It was to be the last
Ottoman government. The next day, Ali Kemal, a former minister, writer and one of the
leading opponents of Ankara, was abducted in Istanbul and lynched in Izmit after he had been
18
D. M. Nicol, The End of the Byzantium Empire, 1261-1453, Rupert Hart-Davis, London, 1972, 88.
Runciman, 139-140
20
Andrew Mango, Atatürk, John Murray, London, 1999, 363. Tarık Mümtaz Göztepe, Osmanoğulları’nın Son
Padişahı Vahideddin Gurbet Cehenneminde, Sebil Yayınları, İstanbul, 1991, 12.
21
Mango, 356, 363.
19
7
handed over to the military authorities there. This incident led to more uneasiness for the
sultan and those close to him.22
During the sultan’s traditional procession to the mosque for Friday prayers (November 10),
there was just a general reference to the Caliphate with no announcement of his name. At the
procession, he was accompanied by only a very small number of his entourage, who were
gradually dwindling in number and losing his trust. In the press, there was increasingly severe
criticism of him, with accusations made against him including reports of treason.23
On 15 November, on behalf of the sultan, his former brother-in-law Major Zeki bey asked the
Commander-in-Chief of the allied occupation army for help in arranging the sultan’s
departure from Istanbul. As a written application was requested, the next day the sultan sent a
one-sentence letter to the British Commander-in-Chief, signed Mehmed Vahideddin, Caliph
of the Musulmans: “Considering my life to be in danger in Istanbul, I take refuge with the
British Government, and request my transfer as soon as possible from Istanbul to another
place.”24
Sultan Mehmed VI Vahideddin left Yıldız Palace on Friday 17 November with his son
Ertuğrul and eight members of his staff. He had returned to the treasury the box of crown
jewels which had been in his safekeeping and had burnt most of his documents during the
night, taking the remainder with him. In two ambulances provided by the occupation forces,
they passed through Balmumcu Farm, Nışantaşı, Beşiktaş and Dolmabahçe, reaching the
battle ship HMS Malaya, anchored near Tophane. When the sultan did not express a
preference for a particular destination, Malta was settled upon.25
The battle ship Malaya sailed towards the Aegean, passing by Sarayburnu, Topkapı Palace
and the Great Palace of the Byzantine Empire, where Mehmed II, when he entered the city
and looked upon its ruins, is reported to have said: “the spider weaves the curtains in the
palace of the caesars; the owl calls the watches in the towers of Afrasiab.”26
Afterwards
There is no significant reason to doubt that the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI
Palaeologus died on the day the city was invaded. However, we have varied accounts of how
he died and if and where he was buried. Some are contemporary accounts, and, of these, some
were written by people who had been in the city during the siege. Others were written in later
periods. In the Hellenic world in particular, there are many articles, books, poems, songs and
lamentations about the dual loss of the last emperor and of the city. Although the emperor had
no children from his two marriages, there have been claims of descendancy.
Bardakçı, 233, 235-9. Gotthard Jaeschke, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Kronolojisi, II, Mudanya Mütarekesinden
1923 Sonuna Kadar (11 Ekim 1922 – 31 Aralık 1923), Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1989, 9-10.
23
Bardakçı, 239. Mango, 365. Andrew Ryan, The Last of the Dragomans, Geoffrey Bles, London, 1951, 150.
Martin Gilbert, Sir Horace Rumbold, Portrait of a Diplomat, 1869-1941, Heinemann, London, 1973, 278.
24
Jaeschke, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Kronolojisi, II, 11. Bardakçı, 243-244. Alev Coşkun, “Vahdettin
Tartışmasında Gerçekler”, Cumhuriyet, 3- 4 Ağustos, 2005.
25
Mansel, 408. Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi,İstanbul Ankara, 1988-2008. Bardakçı, 251-255.
26
Franz Babinger, Fatih Sultan Mehmed ve Zamanı, Çeviri: Dost Körpe, Oğlak Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2002, 98.
Semavi Eyice, “İstanbul’da Bizans İmparatorlarının Sarayı: Büyük Saray”, Sanat Tarihi araştırmaları Dergisi,
cilt 1, sayı 3, (Eylül 1988), 3-36.
22
8
We have no reliable witness accounts of exactly how the emperor died,. He was probably last
seen near Topkapı going in the direction of Bayrampaşa Valley. Various descriptions include
the following details: he had removed his royal insignia; his demand to be killed to avoid
being captured alive was not met by his soldiers; he was trying to escape the city.
With regard to what happened to his body, there are also differing accounts: his head was
severed and taken to Sultan Mehmed; he was buried unrecognised with the other dead; like
other Byzantine emperors he was buried at the Church of Holy Apostles, the present location
of Fatih Mosque, at Sulu Manastır (the Peribleptos Monastery), ,at Saint Sophia, at the
Monastery of Life-giving Spring (Zoodohos Pigi) in Balıklı,at the Golden Gate (Porta Aurea)
or, at Gül Mosque (the Church of Ayia Theodosia ). Some accounts write that the saint
buried in a room in the upper floor of Gül Mosque is in fact the emperor himself, others that
he is waiting to come back, hiding in the Golden Gate, where emperors entered the city
mainly after military victories
The uncertainty over how the last emperor died, combined with mourning for the loss of the
city, have resulted in the merging of legend and history. However, it seems most likely that
the emperor, seeing all was lost, died fighting after a final charge and that his body was not
identified because he had taken off his regalia.
The life of the last Byzantine emperor ended in Istanbul. The last Ottoman sultan was to live
four more years after his departure from the city. It took him months finally to reach a
permanent place of refuge. Unwanted by Great Britain for political and financial reasons, he
would have been welcomed by some who, however, sought to benefit from his title as the
Caliph.. Furthermore, the climate was too hot in the Islamic countries which he would have
preferred. On 2 May 1923, he arrived at the coastal town of San Remo in Italy.27 On 11
September, he gave a written statement to L’Echo de Paris, in which he said he had opposed
entering the World War, had made many sacrifices for the sake of unity between Ankara and
Istanbul, could not and did not accept the separation of the sultanate from the caliphate and
hoped to return to the country he had been forced to leave.28 During his three years in San
Remo, financial difficulties made life increasingly hard. He fell into debt with tradesmen and
was forced to put his ring up for sale. When he died on 15 May 1926, his creditors obtained a
court order preventing his coffin leaving the entrance of the house until his debts had been
paid. Just as it had taken months to decide where he would go after he left Istanbul, finding a
burial place for him proved problematic. Eventually, Sultan Mehmed VI Vahideddin was
buried in the courtyard of Sultan Selim Mosque in Damascus.29
Talk of the last Byzantine emperor has been mainly about where and how he died and where
and if he was buried. Talk of the last Ottoman sultan has focussed on treason.
There has been very little criticism of Constantine, who had administrative and military skills
as well as extensive experience from his long years of responsibility in the Despotate of
Morea, for refusing to surrender the city, even though this might have avoided the looting of
the city as war booty.
Bardakçı, 298, 294, 297, 298.
Tarih ve Düşünce, sayı 60, (Temmuz-Ağustos 2005), 23-26.
29
Yaşamları ve Yapıtlarıyla Osmanlılar Ansiklopedisi. Bardakçı, s.392, 412.
27
28
9
Even in sports it is not easy to put yourself in the place of your defeated rival. Yet some
respect for the vanquished, especially for those who, like Constantine XI, have been portrayed
as heroes, is rooted deep in human history. For instance, the inscription on the Memorial in
Anzac in Gallipoli quotes Mustafa Kemal saying that the foreign soldiers who lost their lives
there “have become our sons.” He also showed respect to the Commandant in Chief Trikopis
and the other generals of the Greek army defeated during the National Movement,30 even
though they had come as invaders from other lands.
Whereas the last Byzantine emperor is seen, especially in the Hellenistic world, as a hero who
tried to defend and not surrender the city,31 the last Ottoman sultan is reviled as a traitor by
many people in Turkey with almost all of his policies being interpreted as treachery
Mehmed VI was interested in Islamic jurisprudence and, like many other Ottoman sultans, in
music. But he had no governmental or military experience and came to the throne as the First
World War was about to end in defeat for Turkey. He had spent forty years of his life in a
palace and was fifty-seven years old. So, it would not be easy to claim that he had sufficient
leadership skills. However, it must also be noted that it had been a long time since sultans
took active part in and led military campaigns. Furthermore, he was in a city and in a palace
which were both under the control of occupation forces. He may, perhaps, have considered
moving to Anatolia, but this could have meant abandoning the capital entirely to the
occupation forces..32
As already mentioned, relations between Istanbul and Ankara and the sultan’s policies were
not straightforward. They may also have been influenced by the following factors which are
usually overlooked: the demands of the occupation forces; the sultan’s efforts peacefully to
influence the Allies (including the most powerful among them, Britain, for which he had
some respect), because prolonging the already lengthy wars, albeit for the cause of the
National Movement, could cause further big losses and defeats; his intention to pursue the
difficult task of a combined policy of war and diplomacy without arousing the suspicions of
the occupation forces; his disapproval of the Union and Progress tradition, which continued to
be influential; the influence of his entourage; his misgivings over the exact significance of a
second centre in Anatolia threatening to replace Istanbul; the possibility of the failure of the
National Movement and its consequences; differing and often conflicting policies towards
Turkey among the Allies and also within Britain - on the Greek occupation of Asia Minor, for
example. Indeed, by the end of 1921, the Allies had pulled out of many of the cities they had
previously occupied and, on 18 May, they declared they would remain neutral towards Turkey
and Greece in Asia Minor.33 Meanwhile, in Britain, at that time the largest Islamic state in
terms of land under control,34 there was a tendency towards policies which would keep the
Caliphate under control or neutralize it.35 This too may have influenced the course of action of
the sultan and Istanbul.
30
Mango, 342-343.
Nicol, The Immortal Emperor, IX-X
32
Nezih Uzel, İngiliz İstihbarat Subayı Yüzbaşı Bennett Anlatıyor, Atatürk’e Nasıl Vize Verdim, Tarih Unutmaz
Yüzbaşım, Selis Kitaplar, İstanbul, 2008. Kadir Mısırlıoğlu, Bir Mazlum Padişah: Sultan Vahideddin, Sebil
Yayınları, İstanbul, 2005, 298-300. Bardakçı, 216-218.
33
Ömer Kürkçüoğlu, Mondros’tan Musul’a Türk-İngiliz İlişkileri, İmaj Yayınevi, Ankara, 2006, 218.Shaw,
2096-2098.
34
Gilbert, 272
35
Mansel, 384
31
10
During his last meeting at Yıldız Palace with Mustafa Kemal (16 May 1919), Sultan
Vahideddin put his hand on a history book and said: “Paşa…Paşa! You have served your
country well. Your deeds are all in this book…recorded in history…Leave them all behind!
What you are going to do now could be really crucial. Paşa, you could save the state!36 These
words were reported by Mustafa Kemal himself and, like the sultan’s courses of action before
and after 16 May 1919, they too are open to interpretation. One view is that the sultan himself
was the architect of the National Movement. What is clear is that more and comprehensive
research is needed. Meanwhile, as many politicians and historians have maintained in recent
years,37 the view that Sultan Mehmed VI Vahidedin was a traitor and that all of the Istanbul
governments were opposed to the National Movement is no longer tenable. His departure
from Istanbul was labelled by many as the flight of a traitor. But he rejected this, describing
his exit as Hegira.38 He left only after the National Movement had come to an end and when
he, the last member of the longest dynasty in Europe,39 saw his life to be in danger following
the abolition of the sultanate. He was not the only monarch to leave his country40 and he tried
to leave in a manner that was appropriate under the circumstances.
There are two main reasons to connect across the centuries the last Byzantine and Ottoman
monarchs who came to the throne at middle age and reigned for about four and a half years.
As last monarchs, they both witnessed the fall of their empires which, during their periods of
rise and decline, ruled similar lands from the same capital. They have both been treated as
enemy or traitor, as “others”.
There are other similarities between the final years of the two empires and the ends of the two
monarchs:41
The capital Istanbul, which had as its first and last emperors and sultans Constantine (I and
XI) and Mehmed (II and VI) respectively, is the only city located in two continents and was
the longest-lived imperial capital.42
Anatolia became significant as a power centre both when Istanbul was occupied after the
Armistice of Mudros in 1918 and when the Byzantine government moved to Iznik (Niceaa)
after the Crusaders’ invasion in 1204.
In the Christian West, both Byzantines and Muslim Ottomans were seen as belonging to the
East. Until their very last days, relations with the West were critical for both empires,
changing for good or bad according to times and countries.
In both empires, the social influence of religion and the need for the support of religious
leaders were strong up to their final days. For instance, theologian Georgios Scholarius,
appointed by Mehmed II as the leader of the Orthodox community, had been an influential
leader against union with the West and had become a monk; Şeyhülislam Dürrizade Abdullah
Falih Rıfkı atay, Mustafa Kemal’in Ağzından Vahidettin, Pozitif Yayınları, İstanbul, 2005.
Abdullah Muradoğlu, “Sultan Vahdettin, Yeni Şafak, 1 Ağustos, 2005
38
Tarih ve Düşünce 21. Bardakçı, 245-246.
39
Mansel, 414.
40
Mısırlıoğlu, 306-307
41
It is possible to find parallels between many topics and events. There are even those who try to infer
supernatural implications from coincidental similarities. Nevertheless, sometimes, comparisons can draw
attention to points that are overlooked if a topic is considered in isolation or can encourage a holistic approach.
42
Mansel, 412.
36
37
11
Efendi, who supported Istanbul and Börekçizade Mehmed Rifat Efendi, the Müfti and
supporter of Ankara, were influential with the fatwas they issued.
For almost the whole period of Sultan Vahideddin’s sultanate, Istanbul was under the control
of the occupation forces. If the starting date (April 1452) of the construction of Rumeli Hisarı
( Rumelian Castle) is accepted as the beginning of the Ottoman blockade, for the last year of
Emperor Constantine’s rule, Istanbul was under siege.
The final moments of both monarchs in the imperial capital were spent among foreign
soldiers who had either invaded or occupied the city. Constantine XI Paleologos was last seen
among Ottoman soldiers in a street in Istanbul; Mehmed VI Vahideddin among soldiers of the
occupation forces on the battleship HMS Malaya, which he reached after quietly passing
through the streets of the city.
If the last of the Ottoman sultans, who regarded themselves to be owners of the realm,
boarded HMS Malaya as a traitor, his end would have been more deeply tragic.
The last emperor may have asked to be killed by his soldiers. The last sultan, who lived four
more years after leaving Istanbul, may have shortened his life by taking high doses of nicotine
or aspirin.43
Constantine lay dead in the streets of Istanbul, Vahideddin at the entrance of a building in
another city.
Except for a short period, Istanbul continued to be a capital city after the Byzantine Empire
was succeeded by another empire. When the Republic of Turkey succeeded the Ottoman
Empire, it lost its status as a capital, but is still the biggest city in Turkey and its economic and
cultural centre. It boasts the traces of both civilisations and continues to be among the
crossroads of the world.
Istanbul is included in the Unesco World Heritage List and was the European Capital of
Culture in 2010. The Spanish writer Juan Goytisolo likens the city to a palimpsest on which,
in former times, new texts were written upon a previously erased text or texts. Since the
erasure was never perfect, the new text included traces of the older ones.44
The legacies of Byzantine and Ottoman empires exist together in many parts of the lands they
ruled. Take a short boat trip calling at stations in the Golden Horn in Istanbul, the city with
most of the shared legacy of the two empires. Saint Sophia and Yeni Mosque, Zeyrek Mosque
(Church of the Pantokrator) and Fatih Mosque, where the Church of the Holy Apostles stood
before, overlap. Gül Camii (Church of Saint Theodosia) appears close to us and then merges
with Süleymaniye Mosque. İvaz Efendi Mosque moves across the Prison of Anemas in
Eğrikapı (Gate of the Kaligaria) just inside the Byzantine walls.
A children’s book, “5 Children and 5 Istanbuls”, describes Istanbul through the eyes of Mert
in the metropolis of Istanbul today, of “Hamdi with the red fez” in Istanbul, the capital of the
Ottoman Empire, of “Helen with the purple mirror” in Constantinople, the capital of the
Byzantine Empire, of “Milya with the blue purse” in the ancient city of Byzantium and of “the
43
44
Göztepe, 197-198.
Juan Goytisolo, Yeryüzünde Bir Sürgün, Çeviri: Neyire Gül Işık, Metis Yayınları, İstanbul, 1992, 155-156.
12
girl with the bone hairpin” living in a cave in the region of Istanbul tens of thousands years
ago.45
We too can and should look at the history and people of Istanbul and the lands it was at the
centre of just as though we were reading a palimpsest and with the all-embracing approach of
this children’s book. We should also try to put aside preconceptions such as enemies, traitors,
others, us and them, ours and theirs.
We could then say that the last two monarchs had similar tragic ends both while struggling to
protect the principal city and the remaining lands of the two great empires that have left their
legacy in similar parts of the world. We could accept them as fellow citizens of Istanbul, a
city with a continuing, common heritage that should be kept alive.
June 2010
45
Betül Sayın, 5 Çocuk 5 İstanbul, Günışığı Kitaplığı, İstanbul, 2006.
13
Kaynaklar
Ahmet İzzet Paşa, Feryadım, Nehir Yayınları, İstanbul, 1993.
Akşin, Sina, İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele, Cem Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1983.
Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal, Nutuk (Söylev), Say Yayınları, İstanbul, 2004.
Atay, Falih Rıfkı, Mustafa Kemal’in Ağzından Vahidettin, Pozitif Yayınları, İstanbul, 2005.
Aydın, Erdoğan, Fatih ve Fetih, Mitler ve Gerçekler, Cumhuriyet Kitapları, İstanbul, 2001.
Ayışığı, Metin, “30 Ağustos Zaferi ve İstanbul’daki Yankıları”, Tarih ve Toplum, İletişim, cilt 18,
sayı 105, (Eylül 1992), ss. 41-49.
Babinger, Franz, Fatih Sultan Mehmed ve Zamanı, Çeviri: Dost Körpe, Oğlak Yayıncılık, İstanbul,
2002.
Barbaro, Nicolo, 1453 Konstantinopl Kuşatma Güncesi, Çeviri: Yurdakul Fincancıoğlu, Büke
Yayınları, İstanbul, 2001.
Bardakçı, Murat, Şahbaba, Pan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 1998.
Bartusis, Mark C., The Late Byzantine Army, Arms and Society, 1204-1453, University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1992.
Carroll, M., “Constantine XI Paleologus, Some Problems of Image,”Ann Moffatt (Der.), Maistor,
Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning, The Australian
Association for Byzantine Studies, Canberra, 1984.
Carroll, Margaret, A Contemporary Greek Source for the Siege of Constantinople 1453: The
Sphrantzes Choronicle, Adolf M.Hakkert Publishers, Amsterdam, 1985.
Coşkun, Alev, “Vahdettin Tartışmasında Gerçekler”, Cumhuriyet, 3- 4 Ağustos, 2005.
Criss, Bilge, İşgal Altında İstanbul, 1918-1923, İletişim, İstanbul, 2004.
Crowley, Roger, Constantinople, The Last Great Siege of 1453, Faber and Faber, London, 2006;
Roger Crowley.
Çetiner, Yılmaz, Son Padişah Vahideddin, Epsilon Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2006.
Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, Türkiye Ekonomik veToplumsal Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, 19935.
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2008 Ultimate Reference Suite, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 2008.
Francis, Yeorgios, Şehir Düştü, Bizanslı Tarihçi Francis’den İstanbul’un Fethi, Çeviri: Dr. Kriton
Dinçmen, İletişim, İstanbul, 1994.
Freely, John, İstanbul, The Imperial City, Viking London, 1996.
Fromkin, David, A Peace to and All Peace, Phoenix, London, 2000.
Gibbon, Edward, “The Fall of Constantinople”, Trevor-Roper, Keith (der.), Gibbon, The Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire içinde, Nel, London, 1966.
Gilbert, Martin, Sir Horace Rumbold, Portrait of a Diplomat, 1869-1941, Heinemann, London, 1973.
Goytisolo, Juan, Yeryüzünde Bir Sürgün, Çeviri: Neyire Gül Işık, Metis Yayınları, İstanbul, 1992.
Göztepe, Tarık Mümtaz-a-, Osmanoğulları’nın Son Padişahı Vahideddin Gurbet Cehenneminde,
Sebil Yayınları, İstanbul, 1991.
Göztepe, Tarık Mümtaz-b-, Osmanoğullarının Son Padişahı Vahideddin Mütareke Gayyasında, Sebil
Yayınları, İstanbul, 1994.
Jaeschke, Gotthard, Kurtuluş Savaşı ile İlgili İngiliz Belgeleri, Çeviren: Cemal Köprülü, Türk Tarih
kurumu, Ankara, 1991.
Jaeschke, Gotthard, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Kronolojisi, Mondros’tan Mudanya’ya Kadar (30 Ekim
1918-11 Ekim 1922), Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1989.
14
Jaeshke, Gotthard, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Kronolojisi, II, Mudanya Mütarekesinden 1923 Sonuna
Kadar, (11 Ekim 1922-31 Aralık 1923), Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1989.
Kinross, Lord, Atatürk, The Rebirth of a Nation, K. Rustem & Brother, Northern Cyprus, 1981.
Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1954.
Kürkçüoğlu, Ömer, Mondros’tan Musul’a Türk-İngiliz İlişkileri, İmaj Yayınevi, Ankara, 2006.
Leary, Francis, “ Night Falls on Byzantium,” International History Magazine, no 12, (12 December,
1973), ss. 32-49.
Mango, Andrew, Atatürk, John Murray, London, 1999.
Mansel, Philip, Constatinople, City of the World’s Desire, 1453-1924, John Murray, London, 1996.
Meydan-Larousse, Büyük Lugat ve Ansiklopedi, İstanbul, 1969-1976.
Mısırlıoğlu, Kadir, Bir Mazlum Padişah: Sultan Vahideddin, Sebil Yayınları, İstanbul, 2005.
Mijatovich, Chedomil, Constantine Palaeologus, The Last Emperor of the Greeks, 1448-1453, The
Conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, Chicago, Argonaut, Inc., Publishers, 1968.
Muradoğlu, Abdullah, “Sultan Vahdettin, Yeni Şafak, 1-4 Ağustos, 2005.
Nicol, D. M., The End of the Byzantium Empire, 1261-1453, Rupert Hart-Davis, London, 1972.
Nicol, Donald, M., The İmmortal Emperor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
Nicolle, David, Constantinople 1453, The end of Byzantium, Osprey Publishing, Oxford, 2000.
Norwich, John Julius, Byzantium, The Decline and Fall, Viking, London, 1995.
Özakman, Turgut, Vahidettin, M. Kemal ve Milli Mücadele, Yalanlar, Yanlışlar, Yutturmacalar, Bilgi
Yayınevi, Ankara, 2007.
Runciman, Steven, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.
Ryan, Andrew, The Last of the Dragomans, Geoffrey Bles, London, 1951.
Sayın, Betül, 5 Çocuk 5 İstanbul, Günışığı Kitaplığı, Ocak 2006.
Shaw, Stanford, J., From Empire to Republic, The Turkish War of National Liberation, 1918-1923, A
Documentary Study, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 2000.
Tarih ve Düşünce, sayı 60, (Temmuz-Ağustos 2005), ss. 19-22.
The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, İstanbul-Ankara, 1988-2008.
Uzel, Nezih, İngiliz İstihbarat Subayı Yüzbaşı Bennett Anlatıyor, Atatürk’e Nasıl Vize Verdim, Tarih
Unutmaz Yüzbaşım, Selis Kitaplar, İstanbul, 2008.
Yaşamları ve Yapıtlarıyla Osmanlılar Ansiklopedisi, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2008.
Yerasimos, Stefanos, İstanbul 1914-1923, İletişim, İstanbul, 1996.
.
15
16