Byzantine–Ottoman wars

After these defeats, Andronikos was in no position to send substantial forces. In 1320, Andronikos II's grandson,

The fate of Nicaea was sealed when the Byzantine relief army was defeated at Pelekanos on 10 June 1329.^[6] In 1331, Nicaea surrendered,^[6] resulting in a massive blow due to its strategic position relative to Constantinople.

Once again the Byzantines' military power was depleted and Andronikos III were forced into diplomacy as his grandfather was before him; in return for the safety of the remaining Byzantine settlements in Asia Minor, tribute would be paid to the Ottomans. Unfortunately for the Byzantine Empire, this did not stop the Ottomans from laying siege to Nicomedia in 1333; the city finally fell in 1337.^[6]

Despite these setbacks, Andronikos III was able to score a few successes against his opponents in Greece and Asia Minor; Epirus along with Thessaly were retaken.^[16] In 1329, the Byzantines recaptured Chios and, in 1335, secured Lesbos. Nonetheless, these isolated Islands were isolated exceptions to the general trend of increasing Ottoman conquests. Furthermore, none of the Islands were a part of the Ottoman domain; their capture demonstrates the potential that the Byzantines had at the time of Andronikos III. Byzantine military ability would be further weakened by Serbian expansions^[16] into recent acquisitions by Andronikos III (Epirus) and finally by a devastating civil war that would subjugate the Byzantine Empire as a vassal to the Ottomans.

Balkan invasion and civil war: 1341–1371

This dual rule eventually failed and the two waged a

The Byzantine Empire was in no position to launch any decent counter-attack or defense of these lands; by now the Ottomans had become supremely powerful. Murad I crushed an army of Serbians on 26 September 1371 at the Battle of Maritsa^[24] leading to the end of Serbian power. The Ottomans were now poised to conquer Constantinople. In an attempt to stave off defeat, John V appealed to the Pope for support offering submission to Rome in return for military support. Despite publicly confessing the Roman Catholic Faith in St. Peter's Basilica, John V received no help. John V therefore was forced to turn to reason with his enemies, the Ottomans. Murad I and John V then came to an agreement whereby Byzantium would provide regular tribute in troops and money in exchange for security.^[25]

Byzantine civil war and vassalage: 1371–1394

By now the Ottomans had essentially won the war; Byzantium was reduced to a few settlements other than Constantinople and was forced to recognize its vassal status to the Ottoman Sultan.

Ottoman advances into the Balkans were aided by further Byzantine civil conflict – this time between

The death of Andronikos IV in 1385 and the capitulation of Thessalonika in 1387 to Hayreddin Pasha encouraged Manuel II Palaiologos to seek the forgiveness of the Sultan and John V. His increasingly close relationship with John V angered John VII who saw his right as the heir threatened. John VII launched a coup against John V but despite Ottoman and Genoese aid his reign lasted mere five months before he was toppled by Manuel II and his father.

In the year 1390,

Whilst the civil war was raging, the Turks in Anatolia took the opportunity to seize Philadelphia in 1390, marking the end of Byzantine rule in Anatolia, although by now the city had long been under only nominal Imperial rule and its fall was of little strategic consequence to the Byzantines.

Vassalage

Following John V's death, Manuel II Palaiologos was able to secure his throne and establish good relations with the Sultan, becoming his tributary. In return for Ottoman acceptance of his reign Manuel II was forced to dismantle the fortifications at the

In 1394, relations between the Byzantines and the Ottomans changed for the worse and the war between the two resumed when the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid (ruled 1389–1402) ordered the execution of Manuel II,[29] after the Emperor attempted to reconcile with his nephew John VII. The Ottoman Sultan then later changed his decision and demanded that a mosque and a Turkish colony be established in Constantinople.^[29] Manuel II not only refused this, he also refused to pay the Sultan tribute and went so far as to ignore the Sultan's messages, leading to a siege of the city in 1394. Manuel II called for a Crusade, which came in 1396. Under the future Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund,^[6][30] the Crusade was routed at Nicopolis in 1396.

The defeat convinced Manuel II to escape the city and travel to Western Europe for aid.

The Byzantines wasted no time exploiting the situation and signed a peace treaty with their Christian neighbours and with one of Bayezid's sons.[33] By signing the treaty, they were able to recover Thessalonika and much of the Peloponnese. The Ottoman civil war ended in 1413 when Mehmed I, with the support of the Byzantine Empire, defeated his opponents.^[33]

The rare amity established between the two states would not last; the death of Mehmed I and the rise of Murad II in 1421 coupled with the ascent of John VIII to the Byzantine throne led to a deteriorated change in relations between the two. Neither leader was content with the status quo. John VIII made the first and foolish move by inciting a rebellion in the Ottoman Empire: a certain Mustafa had been released by the Byzantines and claimed that he was Bayezid's lost son.^[33]

Despite the odds, a sizable force had mustered in Europe under his banner, defeating Murad II's subordinates. Murad II's furious reply eventually smashed this upstart and, in 1422, began the

The Ottomans faced numerous opponents between 1424 and 1453. Tied down by the

The city's fall was not a result of the Ottoman artillery nor their naval supremacy (many Italian ships were able to aid and then escape the city).^[

a Venetian surgeon present at the siege who wrote:

All through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city. The blood flowed in the city like rainwater after a sudden storm, and the corpses of Turks and Christians were thrown into the Dardanelles, where they floated out to sea like melons along a canal.

— 20, 20

After the siege, the Ottomans went on to take

Palaiologoi continued to be recognized as the rightful emperors of Constantinople by the crowned heads of Europe until the 16th century when the Reformation, the Ottoman threat to Europe and decreased interest in crusading forced European powers to recognize the Ottoman Empire as masters of Anatolia and the Levant. Byzantine rule in its former sphere ended fully following the conquests of several major rump states: the Fall of Trebizond in 1461, Theodoro in 1475, and Epirus (then under the Tocco family) in 1479.^[42]

Causes of the Byzantine defeat

Latin intervention

The Latin presence in the Balkans seriously undermined the Byzantines' ability to coordinate their efforts against the Ottoman Turks. This is exemplified by

coup

against the Byzantine Emperor.

Nonetheless, towards the mid and late 14th century, the Byzantines began to receive nominal aid from the West. This was little more than sympathy toward a fellow Christian power fighting a Muslim power and despite two Crusades, the Byzantines "received as much help from Rome as we did from the [Mamluk] sultan [of Egypt]".

Mamluk Sultanate

in the 13th century had been one of the most determined powers to remove Christian influence in the Middle East and raiding by Cyprus did not change this in the 14th and 15th centuries.

Byzantine weakness

Following the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantines were left in an unstable position. The capture of Constantinople in 1261 and subsequent campaigning did not come at a good time – the weakening of the

Beylik founded by Osman I. This weakening of unified Turkish power gave the Empire of Nicaea a temporary upper hand in .^{[citation needed}

]

In order to implement these Greek re-conquests, Michael VIII was forced to levy crushing taxes on the Anatolian peasantry

Komnenian army

. This led to much peasant support for the Turks whose system resulted in fewer taxes initially.

After Michael VIII's death, the Byzantines suffered from constant civil strife early on. The Ottomans suffered civil conflict as well, but this occurred much later on in the 15th century; by that time, the Byzantines were too weak to reconquer much territory. This is in contrast to the civil strife of Byzantium, occurring at a time (1341–1371) when the Ottomans were crossing into Europe through a devastated Gallipoli and surrounding the city, thus sealing its fate as a vassal. When attempts were made to break this vassalage, the Byzantines found themselves out-matched and at the mercy of Latin assistance, which despite two Crusades, ultimately amounted to nothing.^[citation needed]

Ottoman Advantages

Ottoman rule was auspicious to the Anatolian commoner due to the aforementioned Byzantine taxes. Thus, they were able to levy vast numbers of willing troops. Initially, their raiding gave them great support from other Turks near Osman's small domain. In time however, as the Turks began to settle in land formerly held by the overextended Byzantines,^[44] they were able to exploit the hardships of the peasant classes by recruiting their aid. Those that did not assist the Ottomans were raided themselves. Eventually, the cities in Asia Minor, isolated from the much more administrated cities of the western half of the Byzantine Empire, surrendered. During their conquests, the Ottomans were able to acquire a thorough grasp on the art of siege warfare due to a majority of those cities being walled.

It was the Ottoman's laissez faire method of administrating new conquests that allowed them to expand so quickly. As opposed to the heavily centralized Byzantine method of governance, the Ottomans would subjugate their opponents as vassals rather than destroy them,^[25] otherwise they would have exhausted themselves in the process. The exacting of tribute from conquered states in the form of children and money was effective in forcing subjugation over conquest. Coupled with this, the entire region was composed of disparate states (Bulgaria, Serbia, Latin states) who would just as soon fight each other as the Ottomans and realized too late that the Ottoman forces defeated them by integrating them in a network of subordinate states.^{[citation needed]}

Consequences

The Fall of Constantinople came as a shock to the papacy, which ordered an immediate counter-attack in the form of a crusade. Only Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy responded but under the condition that a powerful monarch assist him; however, none would do so.^[45] Pope Pius II then ordered another crusade. Again, no substantial efforts were seen by any of Europe's major leaders of the time. This forced the Pope himself to lead a crusade. His death in 1464 led to the disbanding of the crusade at the port of Ancona.^[45]

The fall also had many implications in Europe: the influx of Greek science and culture into Europe by those escaping the Ottomans was a crucial factor in catalyzing the European Renaissance.^[46]

The failed attempts at defeating the Ottomans at

Nicopolis and Varna, the loss of the Holy Land (without Byzantium the Crusades could not re-supply en route) and the lack of a genuine counter-attack led many, including Martin Luther

, into believing that the Turks were God's punishment against the sins of Christians:

How shamefully ... the pope has this long time baited us with the war against the Turks, taken our money, destroyed so many Christians and made so much mischief![47]

Nonetheless, by 1529, Europe began to rise to the threat of the Ottomans. Martin Luther, changing his views, wrote that the "Scourge of God"^[47] had to be fought with great vigour by secular leaders rather than as Crusades initiated by the papacy.

With the Ottomans' hold on Constantinople

Austrian attempts to contain the Ottoman threat became more and more a formality until the official dissolution of the Empire after World War I.^{[citation needed}

]

See also

• Byzantine empire
• Ottoman empire
• Ottoman Navy
• Arab–Byzantine wars
• Byzantine–Seljuq wars
• List of conflicts in the Middle East
• Ottoman claim to Roman succession

Notes

1. ^ Phillips 2004.
2. ^ İnalcık, Halil (1989). "Chapter VII. The Ottoman Turks and the Crusades, 1329–1451". In Zacour, N. P., and Hazard, H. W. (ed.). A History of the Crusades: Volume VI. The Impact of the Crusades on Europe. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp.175–221.
3. ^ İnalcık, Halil (1989). "Chapter VII. The Ottoman Turks and the Crusades, 1451–1522". In Zacour, N. P., and Hazard, H. W. (ed.). A History of the Crusades: Volume VI. The Impact of the Crusades on Europe. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 311–353.
4. ^ Andrew Peacock, "Saljuqs of Rum". Encyclopædia Iranica. Online only. Updated 2010.
5. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Parker 2005, pp. 70–1.
6. ^ ^{a b c d e} Grant 2005, p. 122.
7. ^ Madden 2005, p. 162.
8. ^ Grant 2005, p. 93.
9. ^ ^{a b c} Mango 2002, pp. 255–57.
10. ^ Mango 2002, p. 260.
11. ^ ^{a b} Bentley & Ziegler 2006.
12. ^ ^{a b c d} Mango 2002, pp. 260–61.
13. ^ ^{a b} Madden 2005, p. 179.
14. ^ Mango 2002, p. 41.
15. ^ Mango 2002, p. 262.
16. ^ ^{a b} Mango 2002, p. 263.
17. ^ Mango 2002, p. 265.
18. ^ Mango 2002, p. 266.
19. ^ Mango 2002, p. 267.
20. ISBN 9780860780199
    .
21. ISBN 9781293648346
    .
22. ^ ^{a b c d} Mango 2002, p. 268.
23. ^ Madden 2005, p. 182.
24. ^ ^{a b} Mango 2002, p. 269.
25. ^ ^{a b c d e} Mango 2002, p. 270.
26. ^ Mango 2002, p. 264.
27. ^ Mango 2002, p. 271.
28. ^ Cousin, Louis (1671). Histoire de Constantinople depuis le regne de l'Ancien Justin, jusqu'a la fin de l'Empire, traduite sur les Originaux Grecs par Mr.Cousin, President de la Cour des Monnuyes. p. 8:335.
29. ^ ^{a b c} Mango 2002, p. 273.
30. ^ ^{a b} Madden 2005, p. 184.
31. ^ Mango 2002, p. 274.
32. ^ ^{a b} Sherrard 1967, p. 167.
33. ^ ^{a b c d} Mango 2002, pp. 274–76.
34. ^ Mango 2002, p. 276.
35. ^ Mango 2002, p. 279.
36. ^ Mango 2002, p. 280.
37. ^ ^{a b} Sherrard 1967, p. 168.
38. ^ ^{a b} Mango 2002.
39. ^ Sherrard 1967, p. 169.
40. ^ Grant 2005, p. 123.
41. ^ Mango 2002, p. 283.
42. ^ Fine 1987, p. 563.
43. ^ Madden 2005.
44. ^ Turnbull 2003, p. 12.
45. ^ ^{a b} Madden 2005, p. 189.
46. ISBN 9780299118846
    .
47. ^ ^{a b} Madden 2005, p. 193.

References

• Bartusis, Mark C. (1997). The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society 1204–1453. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  ISBN 0-8122-1620-2
  .
• Bentley, Jerry H.; Ziegler, Herbert F. (2006). Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past. McGraw-Hill.
  ISBN 978-0-07-299835-1
  .
• Fine, John Van Antwerp (January 1987). The late medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the late twelfth century to the Ottoman Conquest. University of Michigan Press.
  ISBN 978-0-472-10079-8
  .
• Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley.
  ISBN 0756613604
  .
• ISBN 978-0-674-16535-9
  .
• Madden, Thomas F. (12 September 2005). Crusades: The Illustrated History. University of Michigan Press.
  ISBN 978-0-472-03127-6
  .
• Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford UP.
• ISBN 978-0-521-43991-6
  .
• Parker, Geoffrey (2005). Compact history of the world. London: Times Books.
• Phillips, Johnathan (2004). "The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople | History Today". www.historytoday.com.
• Sherrard, Philip (1967). Byzantium: Great Ages of Man. Time-Life International.
• Treadgold, Warren T. (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press.
  ISBN 0-8047-2630-2
  .
• Turnbull, Stephen (2003). The Ottoman Empire 1326–1699. New York: Osprey.
• Vryonis, Speros S. (1971). The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: And the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century. University of California Press.
  ISBN 978-0-520-01597-5
  .