Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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