0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Where does the word farm originate from?
terra firma actually both in the sense of solid ground & later the firm or fixed lease payment for it 1334 any tract of leased land whether cultivated or not 1523 any tract of cultivated land whether leased or not
Who killed the romanovs?
what became later known as the N.K.V.D. Roughly the Soviet equivalent of the F.B.I as they were limited to (Internal affairs) in a sense this is unique as a horrific Family-Plan homicide was commited by a law enforcement agency. It is rumored one Lt. Jacob Yurovsky was the leader of the Murder Squad and started it off with a round from his US made lend-lease Black .45 Automatic. Nice people.
What cause and effect was built into Hammurabi's code of law?
Ancient History Sourcebook:Code of Hammurabi, c. 1780 BCECommentary by Charles F. Horne, (1915)Commentary by Claude Hermann Walter Johns, The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed, 1910-Text, Translated by L. W. KingCharles F. Horne: The Code of Hammurabi: Introduction[Hammurabi] was the ruler who chiefly established the greatness of Babylon, the world's first metropolis. Many relics of Hammurabi's reign ([1795-1750 BC]) have been preserved, and today we can study this remarkable King....as a wise law-giver in his celebrated code. . .[B]y far the most remarkable of the Hammurabi records is his code of laws, the earliest-known example of a ruler proclaiming publicly to his people an entire body of laws, arranged in orderly groups, so that all men might read and know what was required of them. The code was carved upon a black stone monument, eight feet high, and clearly intended to be reared in public view. This noted stone was found in the year 1901, not in Babylon, but in a city of the Persian mountains, to which some later conqueror must have carried it in triumph. It begins and ends with addresses to the gods. Even a law code was in those days regarded as a subject for prayer, though the prayers here are chiefly cursing of whoever shall neglect or destroy the law.The code then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to be slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even if a man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder is to be slain. If the owner's son was killed, then the builder's son is slain. We can see where the Hebrews learned their law of "an eye for an eye." These grim retaliatory punishments take no note of excuses or explanations, but only of the fact--with one striking exception. An accused person was allowed to cast himself into "the river," the Euphrates. Apparently the art of swimming was unknown; for if the current bore him to the shore alive he was declared innocent, if he drowned he was guilty. So we learn that faith in the justice of the ruling gods was already firmly, though somewhat childishly, established in the minds of men.Yet even with this earliest set of laws, as with most things Babylonian, we find ourselves dealing with the end of things rather than the beginnings. Hammurabi's code was not really the earliest. The preceding sets of laws have disappeared, but we have found several traces of them, and Hammurabi's own code clearly implies their existence. He is but reorganizing a legal system long established.Claude Hermann Walter Johns:BABYLONIAN LAW--The Code of Hammurabi.From the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910-1911The material for the study of Babylonian law is singularly extensive without being exhaustive. The so-called "contracts," including a great variety of deeds, conveyances, bonds, receipts, accounts and, most important of all, the actual legal decisions given by the judges in the law courts, exist in thousands. Historical inscriptions, royal charters and rescripts, dispatches, private letters and the general literature afford welcome supplementary information. Even grammatical and lexicographical works, intended solely to facilitate the study of ancient literature, contain many extracts or short sentences bearing on law and custom. The so-called "Sumerian Family Laws" are thus preserved. The discovery of the now celebrated Code of Hammurabi (hereinafter simply termed the Code) has, however, made a more systematic study possible than could have resulted from the classification and interpretation of the other material. Some fragments of a later code exist and have been published; but there still remain many points upon which we have no evidence.This material dates from the earliest times down to the commencement of our era. The evidence upon a particular point may be very full at one period and almost entirely lacking at another. The Code forms the backbone of the skeleton sketch which is here reconstructed. The fragments of it which have been recovered from Assur-bani-pal's library at Nineveh and later Babylonian copies show that it was studied, divided into chapters' entitled Ninu ilu sirum from its opening words, and recopied for fifteen hundred years or more. The greater part of It remained in force, even though the Persian, Greek and Parthian conquests, which affected private life in Babylonia very little, and it survived to influence Syro-Roman and later Mahommedan law in Mesopotamia. The law and custom which preceded the Code we shall call "early," that of the New Babylonian Empire (as well as the Persian, Greek, &c.)" The law in Assyria was derived from Babylonia but conserved early features long after they had disappeared elsewhere.When the Semitic tribes settled in the cities of Babylonia, their tribal custom passed over into city law. The early history of the country is the story of a struggle for supremacy between the cities. A metropolis demanded tribute and military support from its subject cities but left their local cults and customs unaffected. The city rights and usages were respected by kings and conquerors alike.As late as the accession of Assur-bani-pal and Samas-sum-yukin we find the Babylonians appealing to their city laws that groups of aliens to the number of twenty at a time were free to enter the city, that foreign women once married to Babylonian husbands could not be enslaved and that not even a dog that entered the city could be put to death untried.The population of Babylonia was of many races from early times and intercommunication between the cities was incessant. Every city had a large number of resident aliens. This freedom of intercourse must have tended to assimilate custom. It was, however, reserved for the genius of Hammurabi to make Babylon his metropolis and weld together his vast empire by a uniform system of law.Almost all trace of tribal custom has already disappeared from the law of the Code. It is state-law; - alike self-help, blood-feud, marriage by capture, are absent; though family solidarity, district responsibility, ordeal, the lex talionis, are primitive features that remain. The king is a benevolent autocrat, easily accessible to all his subjects, both able and willing to protect the weak against the highest-placed oppressor. The royal power, however, can only pardon when private resentment is appeased. The judges are strictly supervised and appeal is allowed. The whole land is covered with feudal holdings, masters of the levy, police, &c. There is a regular postal system. The pax Babylonica is so assured that private individuals do not hesitate to ride in their carriage from Babylon to the coast of the Mediterranean. The position of women is free and dignified.The Code did not merely embody contemporary custom or conserve ancient law. It is true that centuries of law-abiding and litigious habitude had accumulated in the temple archives of each city vast stores of precedent in ancient deeds and the records of judicial decisions, and that intercourse had assimilated city custom. The universal habit of writing and perpetual recourse to written contract even more modified primitive custom and ancient precedent. Provided the parties could agree, the Code left them free to contract as a rule. Their deed of agreement was drawn up in the temple by a notary public, and confirmed by an oath "by god and the king." It was publicly sealed and witnessed by professional witnesses, as well as by collaterally interested parties. The manner in which it was thus executed may have been sufficient security that its stipulations were not impious or illegal. Custom or public opinion doubtless secured that the parties would not agree to wrong. In case of dispute the judges dealt first with the contract. They might not sustain it, but if the parties did not dispute it, they were free to observe it. The judges' decision might, however, be appealed against. Many contracts contain the proviso that in case of future dispute the parties would abide by "the decision of the king." The Code made known, in a vast number of cases, what that decision would be, and many cases of appeal to the king were sent back to the judges with orders to decide in accordance with it. The Code itself was carefully and logically arranged and the order of its sections was conditioned by their subject-matter. Nevertheless the order is not that of modern scientific treatises, and a somewhat different order from both is most convenient for our purpose.The Code contemplates the whole population as falling into three classes, the amelu, the muskinu and the ardu. The amelu was a patrician, the man of family, whose birth, marriage and death were registered, of ancestral estates and full civil rights. He had aristocratic privileges and responsibilities, the right to exact retaliation for corporal injuries, and liability to heavier punishment for crimes and misdemeanors, higher fees and fines to pay. To this class belonged the king and court, the higher officials, the professions and craftsmen. The term became in time a mere courtesy title but originally carried with it standing. Already in the Code, when status is not concerned, it is used to denote "any one." There was no property qualification nor does the term appear to be racial. It is most difficult to characterize the muskinu exactly. The term came in time to mean "a beggar" and with that meaning has passed through Aramaic and Hebrew into many modern languages; but though the Code does not regard him as necessarily poor, he may have been landless. He was free, but had to accept monetary compensation for corporal injuries, paid smaller fees and fines, even paid less offerings to the gods. He inhabited a separate quarter of the city. There is no reason to regard him as specially connected with the court, as a royal pensioner, nor as forming the bulk of the population. The rarity of any reference to him in contemporary documents makes further specification conjectural. The ardu was a slave, his master's chattel, and formed a very numerous class. He could acquire property and even hold other slaves. His master clothed and fed him, paid his doctor's fees, but took all compensation paid for injury done to him. His master usually found him a slave-girl as wife (the children were then born slaves), often set him up in a house (with farm or business) and simply took an annual rent of him. Otherwise he might marry a freewoman (the children were then free), who might bring him a dower which his master could not touch, and at his death one-half of his property passed to his master as his heir. He could acquire his freedom by purchase from his master, or might be freed and dedicated to a temple, or even adopted, when he became an amelu and not a muskinu. Slaves were recruited by purchase abroad, from captives taken in war and by freemen degraded for debt or crime. A slave often ran away; if caught, the captor was bound to restore him to his master, and the Code fixes a reward of two shekels which the owner must pay the captor. It was about one-tenth of the average value. To detain, harbour, &c., a slave was punished by death. So was an attempt to get him to leave the city. A slave bore an identification mark, which could only be removed by a surgical operation and which later consisted of his owner's name tattooed or branded on the arm. On the great estates in Assyria and its subject provinces were many serfs, mostly of subject race, settled captives, or quondam slaves, tied to the soil they cultivated and sold with the estate but capable of possessing land and property of their own. There is little trace of serfs in Babylonia, unless the muskinu be really a serf.The god of a city was originally owner of its land, which encircled it with an inner ring of irrigable arable land and an outer fringe of pasture, and the citizens were his tenants. The god and his viceregent, the king, had long ceased to disturb tenancy, and were content with fixed dues in naturalia, stock, money or service. One of the earliest monuments records the purchase by a king of a large estate for his son, paying a fair market price and adding a handsome honorarium to the many owners in costly garments, plate, and precious articles of furniture. The Code recognizes complete private ownership in land, but apparently extends the right to hold land to votaries, merchants (and resident aliens?). But all land was sold subject to its fixed charges. The king, however, could free land from these charges by charter, which was a frequent way of rewarding those who deserved well of the state. It is from these charters that we learn nearly all we know of the obligations that lay upon land. The state demanded men for the army and the corvee as well as dues in kind. A definite area was bound to find a bowman together with his linked pikeman (who bore the shield for both) and to furnish them with supplies for the campaign. This area was termed "a bow" as early as the 8th century B.C., but the usage was much earlier. Later, a horseman was due from certain areas. A man was only bound to serve so many (six?) times, but the land had to find a man annually. The service was usually discharged by slaves and serfs, but the amelu (and perhaps the muskenu) went to war. The "bows" were grouped in tens and hundreds. The corvee was less regular. The letters of Hammurabi often deal with claims to exemption. Religious officials and shepherds in charge of flocks were exempt. Special liabilities lay upon riparian owners to repair canals, bridges, quays, &c. The state claimed certain proportions of all crops, stock, &c. The king's messengers could commandeer any subject's property, giving a receipt. Further, every city had its own octroi duties, customs, ferry dues, highway and water rates. The king had long ceased to be, if he ever was, owner of the land. He had his own royal estates, his private property and dues from all his subjects. The higher officials had endowments and official residences. The Code regulates the feudal position of certain classes. They held an estate from the king consisting of house, garden, field, stock and a salary, on condition of personal service on the king's errand. They could not delegate the service on pain of death. When ordered abroad they could nominate a son, if capable, to hold the benefice and carry on the duty. If there was no son capable, the state put in a locum tenens, but granted one-third to the wife to maintain herself and children. The benefice was inalienable, could not be sold, pledged, exchanged, sublet, devised or diminished. Other land was held of the state for rent. Ancestral estate was strictly tied to the family. If a holder would sell, the family had the right of redemption and there seems to have been no time-limit to its exercise.The temple occupied a most important position. It received from its estates, from tithes and other fixed dues, as well as from the sacrifices (a customary share) and other offerings of the faithful, vast amounts of all sorts of naturalia; besides money and permanent gifts. The larger temples had many officials and servants. Originally, perhaps, each town clustered round one temple, and each head of a family had a right to minister there and share its receipts. As the city grew, the right to so many days a year at one or other shrine (or its "gate") descended in certain families and became a species of property which could be pledged, rented or shared within the family, but not alienated. In spite of all these demands, however, the temples became great granaries and store-houses; as they also were the city archives. The temple held its responsibilities. If a citizen was captured by the enemy and could not ransom himself the temple of his city must do so. To the temple came the poor farmer to borrow seed corn or supplies for harvesters, &c.--advances which he repaid without interest. The king's power over the temple was not proprietary but administrative. He might borrow from it but repaid like other borrowers. The tithe seems to have been the composition for the rent due to the god for his land. It is not clear that all lands paid tithe, perhaps only such as once had a special connection with the temple.The Code deals with a class of persons devoted to the service of a god, as vestals or hierodules. The vestals were vowed to chastity, lived together in a great nunnery, were forbidden to open or enter a tavern, and together with other votaries had many privileges.The Code recognizes many ways of disposing of property--sale, lease, barter, gift, dedication, deposit, loan, pledge, all of which were matters of contract. Sale was the delivery of the purchase (in the case of real estate symbolized by a staff, a key, or deed of conveyance) in return for the purchase money, receipts being given for both. Credit, if given, was treated as a debt, and secured as a loan by the seller to be repaid by the buyer, fr which he gave a bond. The Code admits no claim unsubstantiated by documents or the oath of witnesses. A buyer had to convince himself of the seller's title. If he bought (or received on deposit) from a minor or a slave without power of attorney, he would be executed as a thief. If the goods were stolen and the rightful owner reclaimed them, he had to prove his purchase by producing the seller and the deed of sale or witnesses to it. Otherwise he would be adjudged a thief and die. If he proved his purchase, he had to give up the property but had his remedy against the seller or, if he had died, could reclaim five-fold from his estate. A man, who bought a slave abroad, might find that he had been stolen or captured from Babylonia, and he had to restore him to his former owner without profit. If he bought property belonging to a feudal holding, or to a ward in chancery, he had to return it and forfeit what he gave for it as well. He could repudiate the purchase of a slave attacked by the bennu sickness within the month (later, a hundred days), and had a female slave three days on approval. A defect of title or undisclosed liability would invalidate the sale at any time.Landowners frequently cultivated their land themselves but might employ a husbandman or let it. The husbandman was bound to carry out the proper cultivation, raise an average crop and leave the field in good tilt. In case the crop failed the Code fixed a statutory return. Land might be let at a fixed rent when the Code enacted that accidental loss fell on the tenant. If let on share-profit, the landlord and tenant shared the loss proportionately to their stipulated share of profit. If the tenant paid his rent and left the land in good tilth, the landlord could not interfere nor forbid subletting. Waste land was let to reclaim, the tenant being rent-free for three years and paying a stipulated rent in the fourth year. If the tenant neglected to reclaim the land the Code enacted that he must hand it over in good tilth and fixed a statutory rent. Gardens or plantations were let in the same ways and under the same conditions; but for date-groves four years' free tenure was allowed. The metayer system was in vogue, especially on temple lands. The landlord found land, labor, oxen for ploughing and working the watering-machines, carting, threshing or other implements, seed corn, rations for the workmen and fodder for the cattle. The tenant, or steward, usually had other land of his own. If he stole the seed, rations or fodder, the Code enacted that his fingers should be cut off. If he appropriated or sold the implements, impoverished or sublet the cattle, he was heavily fined and in default of payment might be condemned to be torn to pieces by the cattle on the field. Rent was as contracted.Irrigation was indispensable. If the irrigator neglected to repair his dyke, or left his runnel open and caused a flood, he had to make good the damage done to his neighbours' crops, or be sold with his family to pay the cost. The theft of a watering-machine, water-bucket or other agricultural implement was heavily fined.Houses were let usually for the year, but also for longer terms, rent being paid in advance, half-yearly. The contract generally specified that the house was in good repair, and the tenant was bound to keep it so. The woodwork, including doors and door frames, was removable, and the tenant might bring and take away his own. The Code enacted that if the landlord would re-enter before the term was up, he must remit a fair proportion of the rent. Land was leased for houses or other buildings to be built upon it, the tenant being rent-free for eight or ten years; after which the building came into the landlord's possession.Despite the multitude of slaves, hired labour was often needed, especially at harvest. This was matter of contract, and the hirer, who usually paid in advance, might demand a guarantee to fulfil the engagement. Cattle were hired for ploughing, working the watering-machines, carting, threshing, etc. The Code fixed a statutory wage for sowers, ox-drivers, field-labourers, and hire for oxen, asses, &c.There were many herds and flocks. The flocks were committed to a shepherd who gave receipt for them and took them out to pasture. The Code fixed him a wage. He was responsible for all care, must restore ox for ox, sheep for sheep, must breed them satisfactorily. Any dishonest use of the flock had to be repaid ten-fold, but loss by disease or wild beasts fell on the owner. The shepherd made good all loss due to his neglect. If he let the flock feed on a field of corn he had to pay damages four-fold; if he turned them into standing corn when they ought to have been folded he paid twelve-fold.In commercial matters, payment in kind was still common, though the contracts usually stipulate for cash, naming the standard expected, that of Babylon, Larsa, Assyria, Carchemish, &c. The Code enacted, however, that a debtor must be allowed to pay in produce according to statutory scale. If a debtor had neither money nor crop, the creditor-must not refuse goods.Debt was secured on the person of the debtor. Distraint on a debtor's corn was forbidden by the Code; not only must the creditor give it back, but his illegal action forfeited his claim altogether. An unwarranted seizure for debt was fined, as was the distraint of a working ox. The debtor being seized for debt could nominate as mancipium or hostage to work off the debt, his wife, a child, or slave. The creditor could only hold a wife or child three years as mancipium. If the mancipium died a natural death while in the creditor's possession no claim could lie against the latter; but if he was the cause of death by cruelty, he had to give son for son, or pay for a slave. He could sell a slave-hostage, unless she were a slave-girl who had borne her master children. She had to be redeemed by her owner.The debtor could also pledge his property, and in contracts often pledged a field house or crop. The Code enacted, however, that the debtor should always take the crop himself and pay the creditor from it. If the crop failed, payment was deferred and no interest could be charged for that year. If the debtor did not cultivate the field himself he had to pay for the cultivation, but if the cultivation was already finished he must harvest it himself and pay his debt from the crop. If the cultivator did not get a crop this would not cancel his contract. Pledges were often made where the intrinsic value of the article was equivalent to the amount of the debt; but antichretic pledge was more common, where the profit of the pledge was a set-off against the interest of the debt. The whole property of the debtor might be pledged as security for the payment of the debt, without any of it coming into the enjoyment of the creditor. Personal guarantees were often given that the debtor would repay or the guarantor become liable himself.Trade was very extensive. A common way of doing business was for a merchant to entrust goods or money to a travelling agent, who sought a market for his goods. The caravans travelled far beyond the limits of the empire. The Code insisted that the agent should inventory and give a receipt for all that he received. No claim could be made for anything not so entered. Even if the agent made no profit he was bound to return double what he had received, if he made poor profit he had to make up the deficiency; but he was not responsible for loss by robbery or extortion on his travels. On his return, the principal must give a receipt for what was handed over to him. Any false entry or claim on the agent's part was penalised three-fold, on the principal's part six-fold. In normal cases profits were divided according to contract, usually equally.A considerable amount of forwarding was done by the caravans. The carrier gave a receipt for the consignment, took all responsibility and exacted a receipt on delivery. If he defaulted he paid five-fold. He was usually paid in advance. Deposit, especially warehousing of grain, was charged for at one-sixtieth. The warehouseman took all risks, paid double for all shortage, but no claim could be made unless be had given a properly witnessed receipt. Water traffic on the Euphrates and canals was early very considerable. Ships, whose tonnage was estimated at the amount of grain they could carry, were continually hired for the a transport of all kinds of goods. The Code fixes the price for building and insists on the builder's giving a year's guarantee of seaworthiness. It fixes the hire of ship and of crew. The captain was responsible for the freight and the ship; he had to replace all loss. Even if he refloated the ship he had to pay a fine of half its value for sinking it. In the case of collision the boat under way was responsible for damages to the boat at anchor. The Code also regulated the liquor traffic, fixing a fair price for beer and forbidding the connivance of the tavern-keeper (a female!) at disorderly conduct or treasonable assembly, under pain of death. She was to hale the offenders to the palace, which implied an efficient and accessible police system.Payment through a banker or by written draft against deposit was frequent. Bonds to pay were treated as negotiable. Interest a was rarely charged on advances by the temple or wealthy land-owners for pressing needs, but this may have been part of the metayer system. The borrowers may have been tenants. Interest was charged at very high rates for overdue loans of this kind. Merchants (and even temples in some cases) made ordinary business loans, charging from 20 to 30%.Marriage retained the form of purchase, but was essentially a contract to be man and wife together. The marriage of young people was usually arranged between the relatives, the bride- groom's father providing the bride-price, which with other presents the suitor ceremonially presented to the bride's father. This bride-price was usually handed over by her father to the bride on her marriage, and so came back into the bridegroom's possession, along with her dowry, which was her portion as a daughter. The bride-price varied much, according to the position of the parties, but was in excess of that paid for a slave. The Code enacted that if the father does not, after accepting a man's presents, give him his daughter, he, must return the presents doubled. Even if his decision was brought about by libel on the part of the suitor's friend this was done, and the Code enacted that the faithless friend should not marry the girl. If a suitor changed his mind, he forfeited the presents. The dowry might include real estate, but generally consisted of personal effects and household furniture. It remained the wife's for life, descending to her children, if any; otherwise returning to her family, when the husband could deduct the bride-price if it had not been given to her, or return it, if it had. The marriage ceremony included joining of hands and the utterance of some formula of acceptance on the part of the bridegroom, as "I am the son of nobles, silver and gold shall fill thy lap, thou shalt be my wife, I will be thy husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will give thee offspring." It must be performed by a freeman.The marriage contract, without which the Code ruled that the woman was no wife, usually stated the consequences to which each party was liable for repudiating the other. These by no means necessarily agree with the Code. Many conditions might be inserted: as that the wife should act as maidservant to her mother-in-law, or to a first wife. The married couple formed a unit as to external responsibility, especially for debt. The man was responsible for debts contracted by his wife, even before her marriage, as well as for his own; but he could use her as a mancipium. Hence the Code allowed a proviso to be inserted in the marriage contract, that the wife should not be seized for her husband's prenuptial debts; but enacted that then he was not responsible for her prenuptial debts, and, in any case, that both together were responsible for all debts contracted after marriage. A man might make his wife a settlement by deed of gift, which gave her a life interest in part of his property, and he might reserve to her the right to bequeath it to a favourite child, but she could in no case leave it to her family. Although married she always remained a member of her father's house--she is rarely named wife of A, usually daughter of B, or mother of C.Divorce was optional with the man, but he had to restore the dowry and, if the wife had borne him children, she had the custody of them. He had then to assign her the income of field, or garden, as well as goods, to maintain herself and children until they grew up. She then shared equally with them in the allowance (and apparently in his estate at his death) and was free to marry again. If she had no children, he returned her the dowry and paid her a sum equivalent to the bride-price, or a mina of silver, if there had been none. The latter is the forfeit usually named in the contract for his repudiation of her.If she had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he kept the children and her dowry; or he could degrade her to the position of a slave in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. She might bring an action against him for cruelty and neglect and, if she proved her case, obtain a judicial separation, taking with her her dowry. No other punishment fell on the man. If she did not prove her case, but proved to be a bad wife, she was drowned. If she were left without maintenance during her husband's involuntary absence, she could cohabit with another man, but must return to her husband if he came back, the children of the second union remaining with their own father. If she had maintenance, a breach of the marriage tie was adultery. Wilful desertion by, or exile of, the husband dissolved the marriage, and if he came back he had no claim on her property; possibly not on his own.As a widow, the wife took her husband's place in the family, living on in his house and bringing up the children. She could only remarry with judicial consent, when the judge was bound to inventory the deceased's estate and hand it over to her and her new husband in trust for the children. They could not alienate a single utensil. If she did not remarry, she lived on in her husband's house and took a child's share on the division of his estate, when the children had grown up. She still retained her dowry and any settlement deeded to her by her husband. This property came to her children. If she had remarried, all her children shared equally in her dowry, but the first husband's gift fell to his children or to her selection among them, if so empowered.Monogamy was the rule, and a childless wife might give her husband a maid (who was no wife) to bear him children, who were reckoned hers. She remained mistress of her maid and might degrade her to slavery again for insolence, but could not sell her if she had borne her husband children. If the wife did this, the Code did not allow the husband to take a concubine. If she would not, he could do so. The concubine was a wife, though not of the same rank; the first wife had no power over her. A concubine was a free woman, was often dowered for marriage and her children were legitimate. She could only be divorced on the same conditions as a wife. If a wife became a chronic invalid, the husband was bound to maintain her in the home they bad made together, unless she preferred to take her dowry and go back to her father's house; but he was free to remarry. In all these cases the children were legitimate and legal heirs.There was, of course, no hindrance to a man having children by a slave girl. These children were free, in any case, and their mother could not be sold, though she might be pledged, and she was free on her master's death. These children could be legitimized by their father's acknowledgment before witnesses, and were often adopted. They then ranked equally in sharing their father's estate, but if not adopted, the wife's children divided and took first choice.Vestal virgins were not supposed to have children, yet they could and often did marry. The Code contemplated that such a wife would give a husband a maid as above. Free women might marry slaves and be dowered for the marriage. The children were free, and at the slave's death the wife took her dowry and half what she and her husband had acquired in wedlock for self and children; the master taking the other half as his slave's heir.A father had control over his children till their marriage. He had a right to their labour in return for their keep. He might hire them out and receive their wages, pledge them for debt, even sell them outright. Mothers had the same rights in the absence of the father; even elder brothers when both parents were dead. A father had no claim on his married children for support, but they retained a right to inherit on his death.The daughter was not only in her father's power to be given in marriage, but he might dedicate her to the service of some god as a vestal or a hierodule; or give her as a concubine. She had no choice in these matters, which were often decided in her childhood. A grown-up daughter might wish to become a votary, perhaps in preference to an uncongenial marriage, and it seems that her father could not refuse her wish. In all these cases the father might dower her. If he did not, on his death the brothers were bound to do so, giving her a full child's share if a wife, a concubine or a vestal, but one-third of a child's share if she were a hierodule or a Marduk priestess. The latter had the privilege of exemption from state dues and absolute disposal of her property. All other daughters had only a life interest in their dowry, which reverted to their family, if childless, or went to their children if they had any. A father might, however, execute a deed granting a daughter power to leave her property to a favourite brother or sister. A daughter's estate was usually managed for her by her brothers, but if they did not satisfy her, she could appoint a steward. If she married, her husband managed it.The son also appears to have received his share on marriage, but did not always then leave his father's house; he might bring his wife there. This was usual in child marriages.Adoption was very common, especially where the father (or mother) was childless or had seen all his children grow up and marry away. The child was then adopted to care for the parents' old age. This was done by contract, which usually specified what the parent had to leave and what maintenance was expected. The real children, if any, were usually consenting parties to an arrangement which cut off their expectations. They even, in some cases, found the estate for the adopted child who was to relieve them of a care. If the adopted child failed to carry out the filial duty the contract was annulled in the law courts. Slaves were often adopted and if they proved unfilial were reduced to slavery again.A craftsman often adopted a son to learn the craft. He profited by the son's labour. If he failed to teach his son the craft, that son could prosecute him and get the contract annulled. This was a form of apprenticeship, and it is not clear that the apprentice had any filial relation.A man who adopted a son, and afterwards married and had a family of his own, could dissolve the contract but must give the adopted child one-third of a child's share in goods, but no real estate. That could only descend in the family to which he had ceased to belong. Vestals frequently adopted daughters, usually other vestals, to care for their old age.Adoption had to be with consent of the real parents, who usually executed a deed making over the child, who thus ceased to have any claim upon them. But vestals, hierodules, certain palace officials and slaves had no rights over their children and could raise no obstacle. Foundlings and illegitimate children had no parents to object. If the adopted child discovered his true parents and wanted to return to them, his eye or tongue was torn out. An adopted child was a full heir, the contract might even assign him the position of eldest son. Usually he was residuary legatee.All legitimate children shared equally in the father's estate at his death, reservation being made of a bride-price for an unmarried son, dower for a daughter or property deeded to favourite children by the father. There was no birthright attaching to the position of eldest son, but he usually acted as executor and after considering what each had already received equalized the shares. He even made grants in excess to the others from his own share. When there were two mothers, the two families shared equally in the father's estate until later times when the first family took two-thirds. Daughters, in the absence of sons, had sons' rights. Children also shared their own mother's property, but had no share in that of a stepmother.A father could disinherit a son in early times without restriction, but the Code insisted upon judicial consent and that only for repeated unfilial conduct. In early times the son who denied his father had his front hair shorn, a slave-mark put on him, and could be sold as a slave; while if he denied his mother he had his front hair shorn, was driven round the city as an example and expelled his home, but not degraded to slavery.Adultery was punished with the death of both parties by drowning, but if the husband was willing to pardon his wife, the king might intervene to pardon the paramour. For incest with his own mother, both were burned to death; with a stepmother, the man was disinherited; with a daughter, the man was exiled; with a daughter-in-law, he was drowned; with a son's betrothed, he was fined. A wife who for her lover's sake procured her husband's death was gibbeted. A betrothed girl, seduced by her prospective father-in-law, took her dowry and returned to her family, and was free to marry as she chose.In the criminal law the ruling principle was the lex talionis. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb was the penalty for assault upon an amelu. A sort of symbolic retaliation was the punishment of the offending member, seen in the cutting off the hand that struck a father or stole a trust; in cutting off the breast of a wet-nurse who substituted a changeling for the child entrusted to her; in the loss of the tongue that denied father or mother (in the Elamite contracts the same penalty was inflicted for perjury); in the loss of the eye that pried into forbidden secrets. The loss of the surgeon's hand that caused loss of life or limb or the brander's hand that obliterated a slave's identification mark, are very similar. The slave, who struck a freeman or denied his master, lost an ear, the organ of hearing and symbol of obedience. To bring another into danger of death by false accusation was punished by death. To cause loss of liberty or property by false witness was punished by the penalty the perjurer sought to bring upon another.The death penalty was freely awarded for theft and other crimes regarded as coming under that head, for theft involving entrance of palace or temple treasury, for illegal purchase from minor or slave, for selling stolen goods or receiving the same, for common theft in the open (in default of multiple restoration) or receiving the same, for false claim to goods, for kidnapping, for assisting or harbouring fugitive slaves, for detaining or appropriating same, for brigandage, for fraudulent sale of drink, for disorderly conduct of tavern, for delegation of personal service, for misappropriating the levy, for oppression of feudal holders, for causing death of a householder by bad building. The manner of death is not specified in these cases. This death penalty was also fixed for such conduct as placed another in danger of death. A specified form of death penalty occurs in the following cases:-gibbeting (on the spot where crime was committed) for burglary, later also for encroaching on the king's highway, for getting a slave-brand obliterated, for procuring husband's death; burning for incest with own mother, for vestal entering or opening tavern, for theft at fire (on the spot); drowning for adultery, rape of betrothed maiden, bigamy, bad conduct as wife, seduction of daughter-in-law.A curious extension of the talio is the death of creditor's son for his father's having caused the death of debtor's son as mancipium; of builder's son for his father's causing the death of house-owner's son by building the house badly; the death of a man's daughter because her father caused the death of another man's daughter.The contracts naturally do not concern such criminal cases as the above, as a rule, but marriage contracts do specify death by strangling, drowning, precipitation from a tower or pinnacle of the temple or by the iron sword for a wife's repudiation of her husband. We are quite without evidence as to the executive in all these cases.Exile was inflicted for incest with a daughter; disinheritance for incest with a stepmother or for repeated unfilial conduct. Sixty strokes of an ox-hide scourge were awarded for a brutal assault on a superior, both being amelu. Branding (perhaps the equivalent of degradation to slavery) was the penalty for slander of a married woman or vestal. Deprivation of office in perpetuity fell upon the corrupt judge. Enslavement befell the extravagant wife and unfilial children. Imprisonment was common, but is not recognized by the Code.The commonest of all penalties was a fine. This is awarded by the Code for corporal injuries to a muskinu or slave (paid to his master); for damages done to property, for breach of contract. The restoration of goods appropriated, illegally bought or damaged by neglect, was usually accompanied by a fine, giving it the form of multiple restoration. This might be double, treble, fourfold, fivefold, sixfold, tenfold, twelvefold, even thirtyfold, according to the enormity of the offence.The Code recognized the importance of intention. A man who killed another in a quarrel must swear he did not do so intentionally, and was then only fined according to the rank of the deceased. The Code does not say what would be the penalty of murder, but death is so often awarded where death is caused that we can hardly doubt that the murderer was put to death. If the assault only led to injury and was unintentional, the assailant in a quarrel had to pay the doctor's fees. A brander, induced to remove a slave's identification mark, could swear to his ignorance and was free. The owner of an ox which gored a man on the street was only responsible for damages if, the ox was known by him to be vicious, even if it caused death. If the mancipium died a natural death under the creditor's hand, the creditor was scot free. In ordinary cases responsibility was not demanded for accident or for more than proper care. Poverty excused bigamy on the part of a deserted wife.On the other hand carelessness and neglect were severely punished, as in the case of the unskilful physician, if it led to loss of life or limb his hands were cut off, a slave had to be replaced, the loss of his eye paid for to half his value; a veterinary surgeon who caused the death of an ox or ass paid quarter value; a builder, whose careless workmanship caused death, lost his life or paid for it by the death of his child, replaced slave or goods, and in any case had to rebuild the house or make good any damages due to defective building and repair the defect as well. The boat-builder had to make good any defect of construction or damage due to it for a year's warranty.Throughout the Code respect is paid to status.Suspicion was not enough. The criminal must be taken in the act, e.g. the adulterer, ravisher, &c. A man could not be convicted of theft unless the goods were found in his possession.In the case of a lawsuit the plaintiff preferred his own plea. There is no trace of professional advocates, but the plea had to be in writing and the notary doubtless assisted in the drafting of it. The judge saw the plea, called the other parties before him and sent for the witnesses. If these were not at hand he might adjourn the case for their production, specifying a time up to six months. Guarantees might be entered into to produce the witnesses on a fixed day. The more important cases, especially those involving life and death, were tried by a bench of judges. With the judges were associated a body of elders, who shared in the decision, but whose exact function is not yet clear. Agreements, declarations and non-contentious cases are usually witnessed by one judge and twelve elders.Parties and witnesses were put on oath. The penalty for the false witness was usually that which would have been awarded the convicted criminal. In matters beyond the knowledge of men, as the guilt or innocence of an alleged wizard or a suspected wife, the ordeal by water was used. The accused jumped into the sacred river, and the innocent swam while the guilty drowned. The accused could clear himself by oath where his own knowledge was alone available. The plaintiff could swear to his loss by brigands, as to goods claimed, the price paid for a slave purchased abroad or the sum due to him. But great stress was laid on the production of written evidence. It was a serious thing to lose a document. The judges might be satisfied of its existence and terms by the evidence of the witnesses to it, and then issue an order that whenever found it should be given up. Contracts annulled were ordered to be broken. The court might go a journey to view the property and even take with them the sacred symbols on which oath was made.The decision given was embodied in writing, sealed and witnessed by the judges, the elders, witnesses and a scribe. Women might act in all these capacities. The parties swore an oath, embodied in the document, to observe its stipulations. Each took a copy and one was held by the scribe to be stored in the archives.Appeal to the king was allowed and is well attested. The judges at Babylon seem to have formed a superior court to those of provincial towns, but a defendant might elect to answer the charge before the local court and refuse to plead at Babylon.Finally, it may be noted that many immoral acts, such as the use of false weights, lying, &c., which could not be brought into court, are severely denounced in the Omen Tablets as likely to bring the offender into "the hand of God" as opposed to "the hand of the king."
How did Constantinople become rich powerful?
Aww man. Why'd you have to ask that?Well anyway, on the afternoon of 29 May 1453 the Sultan entered the long-desired city. Riding a white horse, he advanced down an avenue of death. The city of Constantinople was being put to the sack by the triumphant Ottoman army. According to an observer from Venice, blood flowed through the streets like rainwater after a sudden storm; corpses floated out to sea like melons along a canal. An Ottoman official, Tursun Beg, wrote that the troops `took silver and gold vessels, precious stones, and all sorts of valuable goods and fabrics from the imperial palace and the houses of the rich. In this fashion many people were delivered from poverty and made rich. Every tent was filled with handsome boys and beautiful girls.' On rode the Sultan, until he reached the mother church of Eastern Christendom and seat of the Oecumenical Patriarch, the cathedral of the Holy Wisdom built 900 years earlier by the Emperor Justinian with the largest dome in Europe. He dismounted and bent down to pick up a handful of earth, which he poured over his turban as an act of humility before God.Inside the shrine which Greeks considered `the earthly heaven, throne of God's glory, the vehicle of the cherubim', a Turk proclaimed: `There is no God but Allah: Muhammad is his Prophet.' The cathedral of Haghia Sophia had become the mosque of Aya Sofya. As the Sultan entered, hundreds of Greeks who had taken refuge in the cathedral hoping to be saved by a miracle, were being herded out by their captors. He stopped one of his soldiers hacking at the marble floor, saying, with a conqueror's pride: `Be satisfied with the booty and the captives; the buildings of the city belong to me.' Below golden mosaics of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, Orthodox saints and Byzantine emperors, he prayed to Allah. After receiving the congratulations of his retinue, he replied: `May the house of Osman there forever continue! May success on the stone of its seal be graven!'Mehmed II, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, known in Turkish as Fatih, the Conqueror, was only 20 in 1453. Born in Edirne, the Ottoman capital zoo miles north-west of Constantinople, he had, according to a chronicle which he himself commissioned, been possessed since his childhood with the idea of conquering Constantinople, and constantly insisted on the necessity of taking the city without delay. The opportunity to realize his ambition came after he inherited the throne in on the death of his father Murad II.Constantinople was a natural object of desire, for it appeared to have been designed by geography and history to be capital of a great empire. Situated at the end of a triangular peninsula, it was surrounded by water on three sides. To the north lay a harbour a kilometre wide and six kilometres long, called the Golden Horn, probably because it turns golden in the rays of the setting sun; to the east the Bosphorus, a narrow waterway separating Europe and Asia; to the south, the Sea of Marmara, a small inland sea connecting the Aegean to the Black Sea. The city was both a natural fortress and a matchless deep-water port, enjoying easy access by sea to Africa, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. In addition it was situated on the crossroads of the mainland routes between Europe and Asia, the Danube and the Euphrates. Its site seemed to have been expressly created to receive the wealth of the four corners of the earth.Founded as a Greek colony, allegedly in the seventh century BC, Byzantium had been re-founded in 324 AD by Constantine the Great as New Rome, a new capital in a better strategic position than the old Rome on the Tiber. For over a thousand years thereafter, it had been capital of the Roman Empire in the East. In the sixth century the Emperor Justinian, the builder of Haghia Sophia, had ruled in Constantinople over an empire which stretched from the Euphrates to the Straits of Gibraltar. To the grandeur of Rome, the city added the magic of time: ninety-two emperors had reigned in the `Queen of Cities'. No other city in the world has such a continuous imperial history. Moreover, for much of its thousand years of empire it had been the largest and most sophisticated city in Europe, a treasure-house of the statues and manuscripts of the classical past, and the nerve-centre of Eastern Christendom. Its wealth had led one medieval traveller, Benjamin of Tudela, to write: `The Greek inhabitants are very rich in gold and precious stones and they go clothed in garments of silk with gold embroidery, and they ride horses and look like princes ... Wealth like that of Constantinople is not to be found in the whole world.' A crusading knight, the Sieur de Villehardouin, wrote that in 1203 his fellow Crusaders looked with wonder at Constantinople `when they saw these high walls and these rich towers by which it was completely enclosed and those rich palaces and those lofty churches of which there were so many that no one could believe it unless he had seen it with his own eyes'.For Constantinople was surrounded by the most majestic city walls in Europe, built between 412 and 422 AD. Moated, battlemented, interspersed by 192 towers, and of treble thickness throughout, the walls marched a distance of six kilometres from the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmara, rising and descending with the inequalities of the ground. They also extended along the Sea of Marmara and the Golden Horn, completely enclosing the city. By the nineteenth century the moat had been covered in gardens and graveyards. Crumbling, choked in ivy, the walls were patrolled by more goats than guards. Yet Byron wrote: `I have seen the ruins of Athens, of Ephesus and Delphi: I have traversed the great part of Turkey and many other parts of Europe, and some of Asia; but I never beheld a work of nature or art which yielded an impression like the prospect on each side from the Seven Towers to the end of the Golden Horn.'The walls had been built because Constantinople was, as one Byzantine had written, `the city of the world's desire'. No city has endured more attacks and sieges: by Slavs (540, 559, 581), Persians and Avars (626), Arabs (669-79 and 717-18), Bulgarians (813, 913 and 924) and Russians (four times between 860 and 1043). It had never recovered from its sack by a Western crusade in 1204, organized by its commercial rival Venice. After the city reverted to the Byzantines in 1261, repeated defeats of the Byzantine Empire by Muslim enemies, and civil wars between rival emperors, had reduced the city's population from a peak of 400,000 inhabitants to about 50,000 Greeks - or `Romans', as they were still proud to call themselves. By 1400 it had shrunk to a collection of small towns, separated by farms and orchards.In 1453 the last Emperor, Constantine XI, ruled over no more than the city, a few islands and coastal districts and the Peloponnese. Commerce had passed into the hands of Venetians and Genoese. The classical statues had been sold or stolen. The lead on the roof of the imperial palace had been used to mint coins. From the roof of Aya Sofya, surveying the ruined palace, the Sultan thought of other fallen empires, and emperors, and uttered the following lines: The spider serves as gatekeeper in the halls of Chosroes.The owl calls the watches in the palace of Afrasyab.If history and geography made Constantinople an incomparable imperial capital, the Ottomans considered themselves destined to rule a great empire. While still nomads in central Asia, many Turks had regarded themselves as `a chosen people of God'. Demons in war and angels in peace, equally heroic and humane, they were destined to rule the world. The Ottoman dynasty were originally members of the Kayi tribe of the Oghuz clan of Turks, which had arrived in Anatolia from central Asia, with thousands of other Turks, in the twelfth century. They were pastoral nomads attracted by the climate and the power vacuum caused by the decay both of the Byzantine Empire and the Seljuk sultanate, a once-powerful Turkish state based on Konya in western Anatolia. In the early fourteenth century Osman, the first Ottoman Sultan, carved out an independent principality in north-west Anatolia on the edge of the Byzantine Empire, around Bursa, the first Ottoman capitalOwing to a succession of remarkable sultans, the creation of an invincible elite force known as Janissaries (from the Turkish yeni ceri, or new troop.), and the weakness and disunity of neighbouring states, the Ottomans had enjoyed a lightning ascent to world power. They exploited the Muslims' eagerness to fight as gazis, or warriors in a holy war against Christians - a war which guaranteed opportunities for loot. Yet the rise of the Ottomans also cut across divisions between Muslims and Christians. Turks fought for Greeks and vice versa: indeed Ottoman Turks were first ferried across to Europe, in 1352, as mercenaries for the Emperor John Cantacuzenus in a Byzantine civil war. On five separate occasions Ottoman princes married Greek or Slav princesses (although the Conqueror, whose mother was a slave of either Christian or Jewish origin, had no imperial Byzantine blood in his veins). At first mercenaries of the Byzantine Emperor, the Ottomans soon became his rivals, helped by an alliance with the rich trading republic of Genoa. By 1366 the Ottoman capital had moved from Bursa in Asia to Edirne in Europe. In the next thirty years the Ottomans defeated the two great Orthodox monarchies of Bulgaria and Serbia, both of which had had ambitions to win Constantinople.Expansion was briefly checked by the rise of a rival Turkish conqueror, Tamburlane, in central Asia. In 1402 he defeated and captured the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I - who did not always deserve his name Yildirim or thunderbolt. After Tamburlane's death, however, the Ottoman bid for world power resumed. Most of Anatolia and the Balkans were conquered. Constantinople became a Greek island in an Ottoman sea. Bayezid I and the Conqueror's own father Murad II both besieged it. It was a miracle that it had not already been taken.After its fall, in accordance with Islamic law governing treatment of a city which had refused to surrender, the Sultan's troops were allowed to enslave and deport about 30,000 Christian inhabitants. Thousands more became `food for the sword'. The last Emperor Constantine XI died fighting, with the Roman Empire as his windingsheet. His chief minister, Lucas Notaras, was executed, either from fear that he would work for the Sultan's Western enemies, Venice and the Papacy, or because he refused to yield his son to the Sultan's pleasure. Most of the Greek and Venetian nobles remaining in the city shared his fate.Constantinople had been taken by the sword; and until the end of the Ottoman Empire 469 years later force remained the Ottomans' principal means of control, as it did for other dynasties. Already in 1452, in preparation for the siege, the Sultan had designed and built the great fortess of Rumeli Hisari on the Bosphorus. `In all haste', between 1453 and 1455 the massive seven-towered citadel of Yedi Kule (Turkish for `seven towers') was built in the west of the city, where the land walls meet the Sea of Marmara. Its present abandoned condition gives no indication that once the Seven Towers was more feared than the Bastille or the Tower of London. It was a citadel where treasure was stored, enemy ambassadors imprisoned, the Sultan's enemies - and on occasion the Sultan - executed. It received its baptism of blood on 1 November 1463, when David Comnenus, last Greek Emperor of Trebizond on the Black Sea, suspected of correspondence with the Sultan's enemies, was murdered - together with six sons, a brother and a nephew - in front of his wife, the Empress Helena. Their corpses were then flung outside, where they were gnawed by local dogs. The Empress was fined for attempting to bury them.No poet or traveller has been as intoxicated by Constantinople as the Conqueror. The Ottoman sultans already used Khan, Turkish for `emperor', in their title - as well as the Persian titles Padishah (Great King) and Shahinshah (King of Kings), and the Arabic Sultan (ruler). From 1453 Mehmed II, like his successors, also saw himself as heir to the Roman Empire and the only true Emperor in Europe. A few days after the siege, a Genoese living in the city wrote: `In sum he has become so insolent after the capture of Constantinople that he sees himself soon becoming master of the whole world and swears publicly that before two years have passed he intends to reach Rome.' Europe and Rome interested the Ottomans, as a field of expansion, more than Turkish-speaking territory in central Asia or the Caucasus. The Turkish metaphor for worldly dominion was the Red Apple. Before 1453 the Red Apple was believed to be the globe held in the right hand of a giant statue of the Emperor Justinian in front of Haghia Sophia. After the statue's destruction in 1453, the apple moved west and came to symbolize the Ottomans' next goal: the city of Rome. `To Rome! To Rome!' was the constant cry of Mehmed II's great-grandson Suleyman the Magnificent. For later sultans the Red Apple was Vienna, capital of the Habsburg Holy Roman emperors. Ottoman ambition had no rival. In comparison, the Shah of Persia was restrained, the King of France modest, and the Holy Roman Emperor provincial.The Ottomans were also inspired by a desire to equal the glory of Alexander the Great. Mehmed II identified himself so strongly with Alexander that he commissioned a biography of himself in Greek, from a minor Greek official, Michael Kritovoulos, on the same paper and in the same format as the copy of Arrian's life of Alexander in his library, which was read to him `daily'. A Venetian envoy wrote that Mehmed II `declares that he will advance from East to West, as in former times the Westerners advanced into the Orient. There must, he says, be only one Empire, one faith and one sovereignty in the world. No place was more deserving than Constantinople for the creation of this unity in the world.'The empire ruled from Constantinople by Mehmed II and his descendants was a dynastic state. Trapped in the prison of their own nationalism, Europeans often called the Sultan the `Grand Turk', and the Ottoman Empire `Turkey', as if it were a national state. Its official name conveys its dynastic essence: it was the `divinely protected' or `exalted' `domain of the House of Osman', or for short `tine Exalted', or `the Sublime State'. The governing elite of soldiers, officials and judges, and from the mid-nineteenth century all citizens, were called Ottomans, after the dynasty. Until the end of the nineteenth century, `Turk' was a pejorative term applied to Anatolian peasants.As the Habsburg dynasty created Vienna, so was Constantinople a creation of the Ottomans. They required a world city, worthy of their empire. Mehmed II and his successors called themselves `world-conqueror', `the King of the World'. One of the favourite epithets, both of the sultans and their city, soon became alem penah, `refuge of the world'. It appeared appropriate to create a multinational capital for an empire which, it was later calculated, contained seventy-two and a half nationalities.Multinationalism became the essence of Constantinople. A common literary device of Ottoman writers would be to compare the merits and looks of the many nationalities in the empire and its capital. In the fifteenth century national differences, based on history and geography more than race, could be acutely felt: Gennadios, first Oecumenical Patriarch under the Ottomans, called Greeks `a race than which there has been none finer on earth'. A medieval Polish proverb stated: `As long as the world is the world, the Pole will not be the German's brother.' Mustafa Ali, a prominent sixteenth-century historian, extolled as a source of strength the number of nationalities in the empire Turks, Greeks, Franks, Kurds, Serbs, Arabs and others. In the nineteenth century a minister of the Sultan, Cevdet Pasha, called the Ottoman Empire a great society `because its people spoke many languages and because it selected the best talents, customs and manners from among its various nations'. The variety of nationalities in Constantinople was proudly advertised in drawings, photographs and the composition of the Sultan's bodyguard; in the twentieth, in political processions and the deputation sent to depose a Sultan.Realpolitik, however, was the principal reason for Constantinople's variety of nationalities. In his new capital the Conqueror needed a large and prosperous population to service the palace and the state machine. Yet there were not enough Muslim Turks for Constantinople to be a wholly Turkish city. The majority of the empire's population, at this stage, was Christian. Turks were needed throughout the empire, to people Balkan cities and the Anatolian countryside. Accordingly, so the historian Kritovoulos wrote, after 1453 the Sultan gathered people in Constantinople `from all parts of Asia and Europe, and he transferred them with all possible care and speed, people of all nations, but more especially of Christians. So profound was the passion that came into his soul for the city and its peopling, and for bringing it back to its former prosperity.' In the new capital each mahalle or quarter (the basic living unit of the city, with its own places of worship, shops, fountains and night-watchmen) kept, with the name of its inhabitants' city of origin, its special customs, language and style of architecture.Turks were the first and largest group whom the Sultan brought to Constantinople. In the years following its capture in 1453 the city remained a ruin devastated by plague. The Sultan had to use an Ottoman technique known as surgun, or forced transfer of populations, to move Turks to his new capital. The chronicler Ashikpashazade wrote that the Sultan sent officers to all his lands to announce that whoever wished should come and take possession in Constantinople, as freehold, of houses and orchards ant gardens ... Despite this measure, the city was not repopulated; so then the Sultan commanded that from every land families, poor and rich alike, should be brought in by force. And they sent officers with firmans to the kadis and prefects of every land ... and now the city began to become populous.Mehmed II personally went to Bursa to force artisans and merchants of this rich trading city to move to the capital. Laments still exist for the fate of the artists and craftsmen brutally transported from the comforts of the old Seljuk capital of Konya in Anatolia to the blood-stained city on the Bosphorus. At moments the Conqueror himself had qualms about his new prize, and withdrew to the former capital Edirne. Edirne had the treble attraction of tranquillity, proximity to hunting grounds and geography it was the natural mobilization centre for Ottoman campaigns in Europe. However, the Sultan's doubts did not last.Like Constantine the Great eleven hundred years earlier, when he summoned senators from Rome to Constantinople, and Peter the Great two hundred and fifty years later, in St Petersburg, the Sultan ordered `the pillars of the empire' to move to his new capital. He told them `to build grant houses in the city wherever each chose to build. He also commanded them to build baths and inns and market-places and very many and very beautiful workshops, to erect places of worship.' Mahmud Pasha, the ablest statesman of his reign, was one of the first to build his own mosque, now embedded in the warren of Hans (inns) and alleys beside the Grand Bazaar.The Conqueror also imported Greeks. Some areas of the city had never lost their Greek population. Psamatya, present-day Koca Mustafa Pasha, in the south-west of the city near the walls, had surrendered separately. It was therefore spared pillage - which explains the large number of churches there today. In the centre of the city, its second largest church, the church of the Holy Apostles, burial place of Byzantine emperors and model for St Mark's in Venice, by the Sultan's express wish remained undamaged. Mehmed II was at war with neighbouring rulers, both Christian and Muslim, in Anatolia and the Balkans for most of his reign. He conquered Trebizond, the Crimea, Serbia, Euboea, and the rival Turkish state of Karaman in Anatolia. As his empire expanded, more Greeks were taken by force to Constantinople. Greek slave peasants (freed in the next century) were settled in villages outside the city in order to ensure its food supplies.There was no religious barrier to Greeks and Turks living together. Christians are `people of the Book': their religion has been superseded by, but is not wholly alien to, the final revelation of Islam. Abraham and Mary are revered by Muslims; `Jesus on whom salvation be poured', as one Ottoman decree described him, is one of Islam's greatest prophets. According to Islamic law, as set out in the Koran, in return for paying a poll and other taxes, Christians received the status of zimmi, or protected persons, with the right to worship in freedom and to live by their own laws.Mehmed II went further. Owing to disputes between supporters and opponents of reconciliation with the Pope, there was no Patriarch in Constantinople in 1453; the Sultan could have left the see vacant and let it disappear, as many Orthodox bishoprics in Ottoman Anatolia already had. But the Conqueror was the most open-minded monarch of his age. His originality was to revive the Oecumenical Patriarchate which had presided over the Orthodox Church from Constantinople since the fourth century.One of the most learned and admired Orthodox churchmen was a Constantinople-born monk, George-Gennadios Scholarius. About 50 years of age, he had been leader of the Orthodox faithful opposed to union with Rome. Enslaved during the sack of Constantinople, he was treated with honour by his Turkish captors in a village near Edirne. There, in the words of Kritovoulos, confirmed by modern scholarship, the Conqueror sought him out, and gave him freedom and gifts: `In the end he made him Patriarch and High Priest of the Christians, and gave him among many other rights and privileges the rule of the Church, and all its power and authority no less than that enjoyed previously under the emperors.' He was consecrated and enthroned on 5 January 1454 in the church of the Holy Apostles.The document of appointment has not survived, and later Greeks exaggerated the privileges bestowed on Gennadios: in an anteroom of the patriarchate in Istanbul today hangs an improbable picture of Mehmed II and Gennadios, embracing as equals. Nevertheless the Patriarch was henceforward a servant of the Ottoman Empire. On payment of a large fee, the new Patriarch received confirmation in person from the Sultan, who addressed him with the formula: `Be Patriarch with good fortune and be assured of our friendship, keeping all the privileges that the Patriarchs before you enjoyed.'There was a bargain. The Sultan protected the Patriarch from rival Slav Orthodox churches, and Muslim fanatics. In return the Patriarch helped raise taxes for the Sultan and, in theory, guaranteed the loyalty of the Greeks and prevented them aiding the empire's Catholic enemies, Venice and the Papacy, both of whom had assisted in the city's defence in 1453, and were trying to reconquer it. As head of the Orthodox community, the Patriarch administered a separate Orthodox legal system, based on Justinian's code, with the power to fine, imprison and exile. Although weaker and poorer than its Western equivalent the Vatican, the Patriarchate of Constantinople was more important for its flock. It was the symbol and institution which kept faith and hope alive: after the conquest of Constantinople, the rate of conversion to Islam in Ottoman domainsdiminished.Mehmed II, who in all these measures took the initiative, appreciated Greek culture, as well as the prosperity Greeks could bring to his capital. Constantinople did, on occasion, serve as a door in the wall between Islam and Christianity. In either 1455 or 1456 the Sultan, with the dignitaries of his court, went to the Patriarch's residence and asked Gennadios to write an explanation of Christianity, which was translated from Greek into Turkish for the Sultan's benefit. Entitled A Short Outline of the Christian Faith, it is long and complex. It is hard for even a Christian to understand such remarks as `We believe that the Word of God and the man, which the Word of God put on, is the Christ; and whereas the life of Christ in his flesh was the life of a very holy man, the power of his wisdom and works was the power of God.' The Sultan nevertheless retained an interest in Christianity: among his collection of Christian relics were the cradle `in which Christ was born', which he told a Venetian envoy he would not sell for five hundred thousand ducats, and the armbone and skull of St John the Baptist.Some of his followers were less broad-minded. A few months after his consecration, Gennadios found a dead Turk in the courtyard of the church of the Holy Apostles. Even the Sultan himself might not be able to protect the Patriarch from an angry Muslim crowd ready to think the worst of Christians. Gennadios moved the patriarchate, its relics and treasures to the twelfth-century brick church of the Theotokos Pammacaristos, the Joyful Mother of God, in the district of the Phanar along the shore of the Golden Horn. Since the Sultan had settled many Greek captives there, it was solidly Greek.Armenians were another Christian element brought to Constantinople by the Sultan. They were a distinct nationality which had lived since at least the sixth century BC in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus. Since the Ecclesiastical Council held at Chalcedon - modern Kadikoy - opposite Constantinople in 451, both Orthodox and Catholics have held the belief that Jesus Christ is of two distinct natures, human and divine. Armenians, however, are Monophysites who believe that Jesus Christ has one nature, at once human and divine. Their use of the Armenian language and alphabet maintained their distinct identity, despite the disappearance of the last Armenian kingdom in southern Anatolia in the fourteenth century. They were prominent in the eastern Mediterranean as jewellers, craftsmen (especially builders) and traders skills which naturally appealed to the Conqueror. Kritovoulos writes that Mehmed II `transported to the city those of the Armenians under his rule who were outstanding in point of property, wealth, technical knowledge and other qualifications and in addition those who were of the merchant class'. This is the Sultan's smooth official version. An Armenian merchant called Nerses, writing in 1480, blamed the Sultan for raising `an immense storm upon the Christians and upon his own people by transporting them from place to place ... I composed this in times of bitterness, for they brought us from Amasya to Konstandnupolis by force and against our will; and I copied this tearfully with much lamentation.'Armenian tradition, reflected in an inscription on the facade of the present Armenian patriarchate in the Kumkapi district of Istanbul, asserts that Mehmed II appointed an Armenian Patriarch in Constantinople in 1461. In reality the Armenian Patriarch remained in Sis in Cilicia or Echmiadzin in the Caucasus, where he still is. Such historical myths are a tribute to the Armenians' desire to raise their position in the Ottoman Empire, and to Mehmed II's reputation as a supranational hero like Alexander the Great, whom different nationalities could invoke as a protector. Nevertheless as the Armenians grew in wealth and influence, the status of their bishop rose. By the seventeenth century he was recognized as an honorary Patriarch, or `prelate called Patriarch', and administered his own law-courts and prison like the Qecumenical Patriarch.North of the Golden Horn, in every sense opposite to Constantinople itself, lay the wealthy district of Galata. Since the thirteenth century it had been controlled and inhabited by Genoese. It had become the Shanghai of the Levant: a semi-independent colony taking control of regional commerce from the dying Byzantine Empire, as Shanghai would do from the dying Chinese empire four hundred years later. In contrast to Constantinople proper, Galata (also known as Pera, from the Greek word for `beyond') resembled a small Italian city, with Catholic churches, straight streets, well-built stone houses, and a piazzetta. Its tallest building, which still dominates the skyline today, was the pointed Tower of Galata, a Gothic monument strayed to the banks of the Bosphorus. In 1453 Galata was more prosperous and densely populated than the Byzantine city south of the Golden Horn.Genoa and the Ottoman Empire had long been allies. Nevertheless, many Galata Genoese had fought against the Ottomans; the Sultan said they had prevented him taking the city on the first day of the siege. Yet he was more interested in prosperity than revenge. A privilege he granted on 1 June 1453 in Greek to `the people of Galata and their noblemen' survives in the British Library. In return for submission, and payment of the poll tax, they would be protected subjects of the empire. They were allowed to keep their possessions, and `to follow their own customs and rites', except for `ringing their church bells and rattle' - a particular phobia of the Ottomans, who tolerated no competition to the call to prayer from the minaret. The citizens' weapons were confiscated, and part of the city wall was destroyed - all that survives today is a fragment near the Golden Horn, bearing the arms of the great Genoese house of Doria. Otherwise Galata was not punished. According to a letter written a few days later by the former podesta, or mayor, to his brother in Genoa: `He has also had lists made of all the property belonging to the merchants and citizens who have left here, saying "If they return, they shall have them back, and if not it will all belong to me."' Most returned.The Sultan liked to have Franks (that is, western Europeans) at his court. For many years he used a wealthy alum merchant of Genoese origin, Francesco Draperio, as an unofficial diplomat (his family is commemorated today in the church of St Maria Draperis, on Istiklal Caddesi). So fond was the Sultan of Galata's Latin ambience that he once entered a Franciscan church and watched a mass.As the Sultan's conquests extended, more Italians were brought to the city, in 1460 from Genoese colonies on the Aegean, and in 1475 from the Crimea. Italians, like Greeks, were useful to the Sultan. In the Adriatic and the Aegean he faced Venice, one of the great powers of the age, with a better navy than the Ottoman. Florence was the principal Italian rival of Venice. The Sultan therefore encouraged Florentines to move to Galata, granting them the houses of expelled Venetians; he even consulted the Florentine consul over his decision to declare war on Venice in 1463. That year the Florentines of Galata decorated their houses to celebrate the Ottoman conquest of the independent kingdom of Bosnia (which rapidly became an Ottoman bulwark, known as `the lion that guards the gates of Stamboul'). In 1465 the Sultan was the Florentines' guest at dinner in their chief trading depot, where he received `galanterie con tutte splendideza e magnificenza'. By 1469 fifty Florentine firms were operating in the Ottoman Empire. They imported silk, velvet, paper - most Ottoman documents were written on Italian paper - glass and fox pelts. Their main problems in `keeping the market moving'- a common phrase - came from plague and the Venetians, not the Ottomans.The example of Galata shows that, in Constantinople, East and West could live together. The Ottoman Empire was never, as Braudel claims, `an anti-Europe, a counter-Christendom'. Galata's merchant dynasties - the Testa, Draperis, Fornetti - were the longest established families in the city. Turks called them `sweet water Franks', in contrast to `salt water Franks' from Europe. A body of twelve counsellors, the Magnifica Communita di Pera, managed the churches of the Catholic community. Merchants met twice a day to discuss business in the equivalent of the Exchange in London, the loggia of the Palazzo del Commune, a Gothic building modelled on the Palazzo San Giorgio in Genoa. When the empire was at peace with Venice, the Bailo (bailiff) of Venice ran a law-court for civil cases concerning Venetian subjects (and other Europeans), whose decisions were enforced by the Ottoman authorities. He also organized a postal service which left twice a month, by land through the Balkans, to Cattaro on the Dalmatian coast, and then by sea to Venice. Letters between the two cities generally took about a month to arrive.Galata was a centre for pleasure as well as business. Every Lent there was a carnival: `One would think one was in a town in Italy,' wrote Marcantonio Pignafetta. Alvise Gritti was one of the many western Europeans who made his fortune on the banks of the Bosphorus. Born in Constantinople, where his father served as Venetian Bailo, debarred by illegitimate birth from a career in Venice, he lived in state in Galata (whose Turkish name Beyoglu, `son of the Bey', is said to come from the fact that his father was a Doge of Venice). A diplomatic agent of the Grand Vizier, and dealer in jewels, he was said to live as a Turk among the Turks and as a Christian among the Christians. In 1524, soon after his father became Doge in Venice, he gave a banquet in Constantinople for 300 guests, including Turks. They dined off deer, partridge and peacock. They were then entertained by women of Galata dancing with `such lascivious movements that they could make marbles melt', followed by a comedy, Psyche and Cupid, a tournament and a representation of the Portuguese occupation of Ceylon. A Turkish writer of the seventeenth century said of Galata, `Who says Galata says taverns - may God forgive us!': the beer iced, in summer, by snow brought from mountains above Bursa. Magnificently dressed, wearing all their wealth in jewels, the women kept the reputation, into the twentieth century, of the ability di fare di un santo un diavolo.Thus from 1453 Constantinople was capital, not only of the Ottoman Empire and the Orthodox Church, but also of that commercial subculture, native to the ports of the eastern Mediterranean, known as the Levant. Until the early nineteenth century Italian, language of commerce and the sea, was its second language, spoken by all Franks, most Greeks and Armenians, and some Turks. Numerous Italian nautical terms, such as caravel and bombarda, for types of ship, or iskele, from the Italian scala, for landing-place, entered the Turkish language. (In another reflection of the dominance of Italian, before 1830 English merchants referred to the ports of the eastern Mediterranean as `the scales of the Levant'.) A form of pidgin Italian, including French, Greek, Spanish, Arabic and Turkish words and known as Lingua Franca, was also common. Until the early twentieth century cries such as `Guarda! Guarda!' to avert collision, or `Monsu, arrivar!' to indicate arrival, could still be heard in the city. Under Mehmed II Galata was a subservient suburb. In years to come, it would exercise a powerful, finally an overpowering, influence on trade, culture and diplomacy in Constantinople.Like other world cities - Amsterdam in the seventeenth century, Vienna in the nineteenth, New York in the twentieth - Constantinople also attracted Jews. The Jews of Constantinople had suffered like its other inhabitants from the conquest. Hebrew poems survive, lamenting their enslavement and deportation, and the cruelty of the Ottomans. To replace them most of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire were brought to Constantinople against their will, by surgun. Forbidden to leave without official permission, they regarded themselves as `ensnared in the net of captivity'. Until the nineteenth century, the surgunlu remained distinct in ritual and tax payments from the kendi gelen, those who came voluntarily.For after 1453 Jews were encouraged to immigrate from Europe. A letter from one rabbi to his persecuted brethren in Europe burns with the fervour of a Zionist immigration prospectus, urging settlement in the Promised Land: Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow star as a badge of shame as is the case in Germany where even wealth and great fortune are a curse for a Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians and they devise all kind of slander against him to rob him of his gold. Arise my brethren, gird up your loins, collect all your forces and come to us.In `the refuge of the world', in contrast to western Europe, there were no restrictions on freedom of trade and few limits on the construction of synagogues. Jews soon flourished as perfumers, blacksmiths, carpenters and, in exceptional cases, tax farmers, bankers and doctors. With their new-found wealth they were able to outbid Christian and Muslim consortiums for the lease of Constantinople's customs. After the first decades, their history is that rarity in Jewish history, a happy story. In Constantinople the words pogrom, ghetto, inquisition had no meaning.From the late fifteenth century to within living memory the centres of Jewish life in Constantinople were the districts of Balat and Haskoy on either side of the Golden Horn, which had contained Jewish populations before the conquest. It was said that `the lads of Balat are real strong youths, those of Haskoy are just dried raisins.' The synagogues dominated Jewish lives. They maintained the customs and rituals of the locality from which the worshippers came, ran local schools and benevolent societies and arranged the payment of taxes to the government. Rabbis acted as judges in the Jewish courts, which enjoyed remarkable independence and had the power to legislate for Jews.The most successful Jew in Constantinople was a doctor, Giacomo di Gaeta, who had left the intolerance of Renaissance Italy for the haven of the Ottoman Empire. Physician to the Sultan, Yakup Pasha, as he was called after his conversion to Islam, won a privilege of tax exemption for himself and his descendants, whether Jewish or Muslim. Constantinople was a city of double identities. Like Gennadios, Alvise Gritti, and the Sultan himself, Yakup Pasha moved with ease between different worlds. He frequented not only the Sultan's palace, but also the house of the Venetian Bailo in Galata. There, probably on the Sultan's orders, he relayed disinformation to confuse Venetian policymakers, such as the claim, in 1465, that the Sultan had turned Christian.Greeks, Armenians, Italians and Jews were brought to the city mainly for economic reasons. The dynastic state itself imported a fifth racial element. The Ottoman government was called the Gate, from the part of the ruler's palace most visibly associated with power: Ottoman government was seen as the administration of the state and of justice in front of the Sultan's gate by his extended household and administrators. The main body of the Sultan's officials and soldiers were slaves known as kapi kulu, or `slaves of the Gate'. Their composition reflected Ottoman faith in racial variety. They were youths between the ages of 8 and 16, conscripted according to need from the rural Christian population of the Balkans and, less frequently, Anatolia, by the process known as devshirme or `gathering'. They could not be Turkish. After the conquest of Bosnia in 1463, although the Koran forbade the enslavement of Muslims, Muslim Slavs could be `gathered'. Muslims of Turkish origin could not.The youths' date of birth and details of parentage were recorded. They were then taken to Constantinople, circumcised and converted to Islam. The best looking and best born were educated in the palace school or a Pasha's household, and eventually entered government service. The others were `given to the Turk' - sent to farms in Anatolia to learn Turkish. They then worked as gardeners in the imperial palace, sailors in the imperial navy, or on building sites in the city. Eventually they joined the Janissaries. A force numbering some fifteen to twenty thousand, the Janissaries were the spearhead of the Ottoman army and the principal military and police force in Constantinople itself. They patrolled the walls, garrisoned the Seven Towers, enforced law and order, guarded the Patriarch and the Sultan himself.Some Christian families were heart-broken to see their children `gathered'. There was a song: Be damned, O Emperor, be thrice damnedFor the evil you have done and the evil you do.You catch and shackle the old and the archpriestsIn order to take the children as Janissaries.Their parents weep and their sisters and brothers tooAnd I cry until it pains me;As long as I live I shall cry,For last year it was my son and this year my brother.More worldly families were delighted to see their children secure a footing on the Ottoman career ladder. Slavery was less degrading in the Islamic than in the Christian world. Devshirme youths educated in the Sultan's or viziers' households had the chance to occupy the highest posts in the empire - and look after their relations. `Slaves of the Gate' were free from many of the legal restraints imposed on other slaves in matters of marriage and property. It was the Bosnian Slavs themselves who demanded to remain eligible for `gathering', despite their conversion from Christianity to Islam. A Venetian Bailo wrote that the Janissaries `take great pleasure in being able to say "I am a slave of the Grand Signior", since they know that this is a lordship or republic of slaves where it is theirs to command'. A hundred years ago, might not selected Irish Catholic youths have felt a similar pride, if they had been converted to Protestantism, sent to Eton and then told to govern the British Empire as servants of the Queen Empress?A specifically Ottoman practice, devshirme was particularly favoured by Mehmed II. An Italian wrote: `In this he shows a remarkable tenacity of purpose, as if by his own efforts he wished to produce a new people.' The process removed potential rebels and transformed them into loyal Ottomans. Moreover traditional Islamic `mirrors for princes', which were read by Ottoman bureaucrats, taught the advantages of racial variety. According to the Book of Government or Rules for Kings, if the Sultan employed different races, `all races endeavoured to surpass one another ... When troops are all of one race dangers arise; they lack zeal and are apt to be disorderly.'Distrust of Turks was, however, the main reason for `gathering'. One inmate of the palace wrote: `There are few native-speaking Turks in the palace because the Sultan finds himself more faithfully served by Christian converts who have neither hearth nor home nor parents nor friends. They conceive such an affection for his service that if it were in their power they would voluntarily expose a thousand lives for the life of his person and the increase of his empire.' Many of the Turkish Muslim elite, on the other hand, pre-dated and envied the Ottomans: there had been ancient Turkish states in Anatolia, like Rum and Danishmend, when the Ottomans were new arrivals. Mehmed II had experienced the dangers of a powerful Muslim elite: after a first reign of two years, he had been deposed in 1446. Probably at the instigation of the Grand Vizier Candarli Halil, a cousin and member of a family which had supplied three grand viziers, his father Murad II had then returned to the throne for two years. Out of fear of Western reaction, the Grand Vizier had continued to oppose Mehmed II's decision to attack Constantinople: he called it the `follies of an intoxicated youth'. Soon after the siege, Mehmed II had him executed. Henceforth most grand viziers, and pashas, were `slaves of the Gate': only five of the first forty-eight grand viziers after 1453 were native-born Turks. In disgust some Turks called the Sultan's council, or dime, `the slave market'.The presence of the Janissaries meant that many of the soldiers - and the great mosque builders and viziers - in Constantinople were Slavs. In 1542, according to a French traveller, in the palace `Sclavonian' (Serbo-Croat) was the language `most used and understood of all ... all the more since it is common to the Janissaries'. Contrary to what historians used to believe, slaves of the Gate were also able to straddle two worlds, maintaining contact from the capital with their family in the provinces. The Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha, for example, conducted negotiations with Serbia in 1457. If they led to a favourable peace and a higher tribute for the Ottoman Empire, it was no doubt because the highest official in the Serbian court, the Grand Voivode Michael Angelovic, was his brother.Some slaves of the Gate formed a Serb lobby in the capital, often in conflict with the Greek-dominated Patriarchate. The most prominent Constantinople Serb, and one of the most prominent figures of Ottoman history, was born Bajica Sokolovic in 1505, fifty years after the conquest,.in the small town of Visegrad on the Serbian-Bosnian frontier. A man of imposing presence, with a black beard and a hawk nose, he rose swiftly through the ranks of the devshirme, occupying successively the posts of falconer, Grand Admiral, vizier, Viceroy of Europe. Finally, from 1564 to 1579, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, as he had become, was Grand Vizier. Courteous, prudent, avaricious, he was a statesman with a world view. From his palaces in Constantinople he planned canals between the Don and the Volga and the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, in order to help Muslim states against Russia and Portugal respectively, sent munitions to Sumatra, helped select a new king for Poland, ordered pictures and clocks from Venice and arranged a successful peace with Spain, Venice and the Papacy, despite the Ottoman naval defeat at Lepanto, in 1573.Yet he kept links with his Serb roots. He placed relations in the Ottoman central government and in 1557, at his insistence, the Serbian archbishopric of Pecs was revived, against the wishes of the Patriarchate: his brother was the first Archbishop. Himself destined for the priesthood when `gathered' for the Sultan, he is said, on occasion, to have accompanied his nephews to church, on their visits to Constantinople.Architecture perpetuates the links between the two worlds of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. In Constantinople his wife Ismihan Sultan, daughter of Sultan Selim II, built him a masterpiece from the golden age of Ottoman architecture, the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha mosque by the old Roman hippodrome. Near his birthplace in Bosnia, the Grand Vizier himself commissioned an eleven-arched bridge over the River Drina, `one of the noblest spans you are likely to see'. Damaged in both world wars, twice rebuilt, it was finally destroyed by Croatian bombs in 1994.Twenty-four years after the conquest, in 1477, a census was taken by the city judge of Constantinople, for the personal information of the Sultan. There were, in Constantinople and Galata: 9,486 houses inhabited by Muslims; 3,743 houses inhabited by Greeks; 1,647 houses inhabited by Jews; 434 houses inhabited by Armenians; 384 houses inhabited by Karamanians of Armenian appearance; 332 houses inhabited by Franks (all in Galata); 267 houses inhabited by Christians from the Crimea, and 31 houses inhabited by gypsies. In all there were perhaps 80,000 inhabitants (excluding the slaves of the Gate). Constantinople was a city which defied nationalism, in whose streets Greek, Armenian, Italian, Lingua Franca, Albanian, Bulgarian and Serbian, as well as Turkish, Persian and Arabic, were spoken.The only multinational capital in Europe, Constantinople received names in more languages than any other city. Serbs, Bulgarians and Russians admired Tsarigrad - the city of Emperors. Armenians lived in Gosdantnubolis - the city of Constantine. In everyday language Greeks called it - as some still do - polis, the city: there is no other. Its official Greek name had been Constantinoupolis Nea Roma, after which Ottomans called it, on coins and most official documents, Kostantiniyye (which is also its name in Arabic). In literary Ottoman it was called Der-i Sa'adet, `the House of Good Fortune', since it had the good fortune to be the Sultan's residence, or Asithane, Persian for `house of state'. However its name, in everyday spoken Turkish, even before the conquest, was a corruption of the Greek phrase for `into the city', eis teen teen polin: Istanbul.Heads and feet, as well as names, demonstrated the city's multinational character. The inhabitants of Constantinople, whatever their religion, generally wore simple robes or tunics, like those of Gulf Arabs today, but of darker colours. Over the tunic they wore a dolman of satin or linen, padded with cotton in winter, and a sash. They laughed at western Europeans who spoiled their clothes with trimmings, pleats and slashes.Until the nineteenth century, in order both to demonstrate Muslim superiority and to foster national rivalries, the Ottoman government enforced distinctions of dress between the different communities. Only Muslims could wear white or green turbans and yellow slippers. Greeks, Armenians and Jews were distinguished respectively by sky blue, dark blue (later red) and yellow hats, and by black, violet and blue slippers. The rules governing the costume of religious minorities were regularly reasserted. In 1580, for example, `considering that their attitude from the point of view of the sheriat [Muslim holy law] and of logic should be humility and abjection',Jews and Christians were formally forbidden `to dress like Muslims', to wear silk, fur, or red shoes, and instead were enjoined to wear dark colours or blue. They were also repeatedly forbidden to live near mosques, to build tall houses or to buy slaves.Such reiterations show that the rules were often flouted: the status of Muslims was so attractive that the minorities' desire to resemble them was irrepressible. Individuals could also buy exemption from dress regulations. However, for most people most of the time, the clothes they wore reinforced their sense of belonging to a specific community. Contrasts of feature could reinforce those of dress.Most inhabitants of Constantinople still claim that they can tell by sight whether a neighbour is Turkish, Greek, Jewish or Armenian. In the nineteenth century, after the end of the dress laws, a travel-writer, Edmondo de Amicis, wrote that a Turk and Greek sitting beside each other, even if they were dressed in the same style, could at once be distinguished by the silent immobility of the former and the latter's `thousand changing expressions of life and eye' as he tossed his head `with the movement of a spirited horse'. In the first century of the empire, faces and gestures made plain the multinationalism of Constantinople.In 1477, the year of the census, the creator of this multinational microcosm, Mehmed II, was 47. To a page at his court, Gian Maria Angiolello, he appeared `of medium height, fat and fleshy; he had a wide forehead, large eyes with thick lashes, an aquiline nose, a small mouth with a round copious reddish-tinged beard, a short thick neck, a sallow complexion, rather high shoulders and a loud voice'. After a reign of conquest he now had time to relax in his capital.Like the city itself, he was a collection of contrasts: cruel and gentle, ruthless and tolerant, pious and pederast. He built schools and markets as enthusiastically as he ordered tortures and massacres. Regarding himself both as the supreme gazi, or warrior for Islam, and the new Alexander, he read, or listened to, the Koran, expositions of the Gospels, Persian poets, chronicles of emperors' popes and the kings of France, Arrian's life of Alexander, Homer, Herodotus, Livy and Xenophon. He treated language as an instrument of communication, not domination. Although not comparable to the great enemy of the Ottoman Empire, the Emperor Charles V, who was said to speak Spanish to God, French to gentlemen, Italian to ladies, and German to his horse, Mehmed II spoke Turkish, Persian, Arabic, and almost certainly had some knowledge of Greek and Serbo-Croat. In his poems he called himself not Fatih, the conqueror, but Avni, the herpes He was author of a typical Ottoman couplet: Footman, pour me some wine, for one day the tulip garden will be destroyed;Autumn will come soon and the spring season will be no more!Although he wrote and governed in Turkish, he revered Persian culture, which enjoyed some of the prestige, in the Muslim world, of French culture in eighteenth-century Europe. A further language was added to the polyphony of the city. Among the Persian scholars he attracted to Constantinople was the last great medieval Islamic astronomer, Ali Kuscu of Samarkand, who taught at the school attached to Aya Sofya. When Mehmed II discovered that another poet, although Persian-educated, was in fact Turkish in origin, the Sultan took away the ruined Greek church which had been given to him as a sign of favour.Persian culture was so influential that Ottoman, the language of the palace and the governing elite, although Turkish in structure, was partly Persian - and Arabic - in vocabulary: in the 1920s only 37 per cent of words in the dictionary were of Turkish origin. The complexities of its vocabulary and sentence structure made the Ottoman language one of the principal barriers to the spread of literacy and of contact with the outside world. To heighten the contrast with the simple Turkish of the street, `gilded' expressions were deliberately employed. When a famous calligrapher died, for example, it was said that `the dots of his script became transformed into moles on the cheeks of the houris of Paradise'. There were few rebels. A sixteenth-century poet, Yahya Bey, refused to be `the dragoman of the Persians' or `to eat the food of dead Persians', and wrote in vigorous Turkish. Yet he was not Turkish but a Janissary, proud of his Albanian birth.Mehmed II patronized Muslim scholars and theologians, often paying surprise visits to the college he founded beside his mosque, to listen to lectures and test teachers and pupils. Yet he was also a student of Greek philosophy, the greatest single patron of the Italian Renaissance medal, and the first Muslim ruler to appreciate Italian artists. Among the artists he invited to and employed in Constantinople were Matteo de' Pasti from Rimini, Maestro Paoli from Dubrovnik, and the medallist Costanzo da Ferrara.In the last years of his reign Constantinople was diplomatically, commercially and culturally part of Europe. In 1479, after sixteen years of war, Mehmed II made peace with Venice. That September, in answer to his request for `e good painter', the Doge's official artist, Gentile Bellini, came to Constantinople and was presented to the Sultan by the Bailo of Venice. Having spent the previous five years repainting the Hall of the Great Council in the Doge's Palace, for the next year and a quarter he painted portraits of Mehmed II and his court and erotic frescos (cosi de lussuria) for the `inner chambers' of the palace the Sultan was building on the easternmost point of Constantinople.By 1481, though only 48, the Sultan was emaciated and debilitated. Not even his viziers knew what country he was planning to conquer, when he died that year from blocked intestines, leading his army east from Constantinople into Asia. Certain circumstances attending his death make it likely that he was poisoned - possibly with the help of his Persian physician al-Lard, acting for his son Bayezid II.His death left his capital at a crossroads. It was a city like a chemical experiment, containing disparate elements that could either combine or combust. In theory a multinational dynastic capital, in practice it attracted conflicts between nationalism and empire, ambition and realism, love of the city and the desire to transform or leave it.
Why did Constantinople become rich powerful?
Aww man. Why'd you have to ask that?Well anyway, on the afternoon of 29 May 1453 the Sultan entered the long-desired city. Riding a white horse, he advanced down an avenue of death. The city of Constantinople was being put to the sack by the triumphant Ottoman army. According to an observer from Venice, blood flowed through the streets like rainwater after a sudden storm; corpses floated out to sea like melons along a canal. An Ottoman official, Tursun Beg, wrote that the troops `took silver and gold vessels, precious stones, and all sorts of valuable goods and fabrics from the imperial palace and the houses of the rich. In this fashion many people were delivered from poverty and made rich. Every tent was filled with handsome boys and beautiful girls.' On rode the Sultan, until he reached the mother church of Eastern Christendom and seat of the Oecumenical Patriarch, the cathedral of the Holy Wisdom built 900 years earlier by the Emperor Justinian with the largest dome in Europe. He dismounted and bent down to pick up a handful of earth, which he poured over his turban as an act of humility before God.Inside the shrine which Greeks considered `the earthly heaven, throne of God's glory, the vehicle of the cherubim', a Turk proclaimed: `There is no God but Allah: Muhammad is his Prophet.' The cathedral of Haghia Sophia had become the mosque of Aya Sofya. As the Sultan entered, hundreds of Greeks who had taken refuge in the cathedral hoping to be saved by a miracle, were being herded out by their captors. He stopped one of his soldiers hacking at the marble floor, saying, with a conqueror's pride: `Be satisfied with the booty and the captives; the buildings of the city belong to me.' Below golden mosaics of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, Orthodox saints and Byzantine emperors, he prayed to Allah. After receiving the congratulations of his retinue, he replied: `May the house of Osman there forever continue! May success on the stone of its seal be graven!'Mehmed II, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, known in Turkish as Fatih, the Conqueror, was only 20 in 1453. Born in Edirne, the Ottoman capital zoo miles north-west of Constantinople, he had, according to a chronicle which he himself commissioned, been possessed since his childhood with the idea of conquering Constantinople, and constantly insisted on the necessity of taking the city without delay. The opportunity to realize his ambition came after he inherited the throne in on the death of his father Murad II.Constantinople was a natural object of desire, for it appeared to have been designed by geography and history to be capital of a great empire. Situated at the end of a triangular peninsula, it was surrounded by water on three sides. To the north lay a harbour a kilometre wide and six kilometres long, called the Golden Horn, probably because it turns golden in the rays of the setting sun; to the east the Bosphorus, a narrow waterway separating Europe and Asia; to the south, the Sea of Marmara, a small inland sea connecting the Aegean to the Black Sea. The city was both a natural fortress and a matchless deep-water port, enjoying easy access by sea to Africa, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. In addition it was situated on the crossroads of the mainland routes between Europe and Asia, the Danube and the Euphrates. Its site seemed to have been expressly created to receive the wealth of the four corners of the earth.Founded as a Greek colony, allegedly in the seventh century BC, Byzantium had been re-founded in 324 AD by Constantine the Great as New Rome, a new capital in a better strategic position than the old Rome on the Tiber. For over a thousand years thereafter, it had been capital of the Roman Empire in the East. In the sixth century the Emperor Justinian, the builder of Haghia Sophia, had ruled in Constantinople over an empire which stretched from the Euphrates to the Straits of Gibraltar. To the grandeur of Rome, the city added the magic of time: ninety-two emperors had reigned in the `Queen of Cities'. No other city in the world has such a continuous imperial history. Moreover, for much of its thousand years of empire it had been the largest and most sophisticated city in Europe, a treasure-house of the statues and manuscripts of the classical past, and the nerve-centre of Eastern Christendom. Its wealth had led one medieval traveller, Benjamin of Tudela, to write: `The Greek inhabitants are very rich in gold and precious stones and they go clothed in garments of silk with gold embroidery, and they ride horses and look like princes ... Wealth like that of Constantinople is not to be found in the whole world.' A crusading knight, the Sieur de Villehardouin, wrote that in 1203 his fellow Crusaders looked with wonder at Constantinople `when they saw these high walls and these rich towers by which it was completely enclosed and those rich palaces and those lofty churches of which there were so many that no one could believe it unless he had seen it with his own eyes'.For Constantinople was surrounded by the most majestic city walls in Europe, built between 412 and 422 AD. Moated, battlemented, interspersed by 192 towers, and of treble thickness throughout, the walls marched a distance of six kilometres from the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmara, rising and descending with the inequalities of the ground. They also extended along the Sea of Marmara and the Golden Horn, completely enclosing the city. By the nineteenth century the moat had been covered in gardens and graveyards. Crumbling, choked in ivy, the walls were patrolled by more goats than guards. Yet Byron wrote: `I have seen the ruins of Athens, of Ephesus and Delphi: I have traversed the great part of Turkey and many other parts of Europe, and some of Asia; but I never beheld a work of nature or art which yielded an impression like the prospect on each side from the Seven Towers to the end of the Golden Horn.'The walls had been built because Constantinople was, as one Byzantine had written, `the city of the world's desire'. No city has endured more attacks and sieges: by Slavs (540, 559, 581), Persians and Avars (626), Arabs (669-79 and 717-18), Bulgarians (813, 913 and 924) and Russians (four times between 860 and 1043). It had never recovered from its sack by a Western crusade in 1204, organized by its commercial rival Venice. After the city reverted to the Byzantines in 1261, repeated defeats of the Byzantine Empire by Muslim enemies, and civil wars between rival emperors, had reduced the city's population from a peak of 400,000 inhabitants to about 50,000 Greeks - or `Romans', as they were still proud to call themselves. By 1400 it had shrunk to a collection of small towns, separated by farms and orchards.In 1453 the last Emperor, Constantine XI, ruled over no more than the city, a few islands and coastal districts and the Peloponnese. Commerce had passed into the hands of Venetians and Genoese. The classical statues had been sold or stolen. The lead on the roof of the imperial palace had been used to mint coins. From the roof of Aya Sofya, surveying the ruined palace, the Sultan thought of other fallen empires, and emperors, and uttered the following lines:The spider serves as gatekeeper in the halls of Chosroes.The owl calls the watches in the palace of Afrasyab.If history and geography made Constantinople an incomparable imperial capital, the Ottomans considered themselves destined to rule a great empire. While still nomads in central Asia, many Turks had regarded themselves as `a chosen people of God'. Demons in war and angels in peace, equally heroic and humane, they were destined to rule the world. The Ottoman dynasty were originally members of the Kayi tribe of the Oghuz clan of Turks, which had arrived in Anatolia from central Asia, with thousands of other Turks, in the twelfth century. They were pastoral nomads attracted by the climate and the power vacuum caused by the decay both of the Byzantine Empire and the Seljuk sultanate, a once-powerful Turkish state based on Konya in western Anatolia. In the early fourteenth century Osman, the first Ottoman Sultan, carved out an independent principality in north-west Anatolia on the edge of the Byzantine Empire, around Bursa, the first Ottoman capitalOwing to a succession of remarkable sultans, the creation of an invincible elite force known as Janissaries (from the Turkish yeni ceri, or new troop.), and the weakness and disunity of neighbouring states, the Ottomans had enjoyed a lightning ascent to world power. They exploited the Muslims' eagerness to fight as gazis, or warriors in a holy war against Christians - a war which guaranteed opportunities for loot. Yet the rise of the Ottomans also cut across divisions between Muslims and Christians. Turks fought for Greeks and vice versa: indeed Ottoman Turks were first ferried across to Europe, in 1352, as mercenaries for the Emperor John Cantacuzenus in a Byzantine civil war. On five separate occasions Ottoman princes married Greek or Slav princesses (although the Conqueror, whose mother was a slave of either Christian or Jewish origin, had no imperial Byzantine blood in his veins). At first mercenaries of the Byzantine Emperor, the Ottomans soon became his rivals, helped by an alliance with the rich trading republic of Genoa. By 1366 the Ottoman capital had moved from Bursa in Asia to Edirne in Europe. In the next thirty years the Ottomans defeated the two great Orthodox monarchies of Bulgaria and Serbia, both of which had had ambitions to win Constantinople.Expansion was briefly checked by the rise of a rival Turkish conqueror, Tamburlane, in central Asia. In 1402 he defeated and captured the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I - who did not always deserve his name Yildirim or thunderbolt. After Tamburlane's death, however, the Ottoman bid for world power resumed. Most of Anatolia and the Balkans were conquered. Constantinople became a Greek island in an Ottoman sea. Bayezid I and the Conqueror's own father Murad II both besieged it. It was a miracle that it had not already been taken.After its fall, in accordance with Islamic law governing treatment of a city which had refused to surrender, the Sultan's troops were allowed to enslave and deport about 30,000 Christian inhabitants. Thousands more became `food for the sword'. The last Emperor Constantine XI died fighting, with the Roman Empire as his windingsheet. His chief minister, Lucas Notaras, was executed, either from fear that he would work for the Sultan's Western enemies, Venice and the Papacy, or because he refused to yield his son to the Sultan's pleasure. Most of the Greek and Venetian nobles remaining in the city shared his fate.Constantinople had been taken by the sword; and until the end of the Ottoman Empire 469 years later force remained the Ottomans' principal means of control, as it did for other dynasties. Already in 1452, in preparation for the siege, the Sultan had designed and built the great fortess of Rumeli Hisari on the Bosphorus. `In all haste', between 1453 and 1455 the massive seven-towered citadel of Yedi Kule (Turkish for `seven towers') was built in the west of the city, where the land walls meet the Sea of Marmara. Its present abandoned condition gives no indication that once the Seven Towers was more feared than the Bastille or the Tower of London. It was a citadel where treasure was stored, enemy ambassadors imprisoned, the Sultan's enemies - and on occasion the Sultan - executed. It received its baptism of blood on 1 November 1463, when David Comnenus, last Greek Emperor of Trebizond on the Black Sea, suspected of correspondence with the Sultan's enemies, was murdered - together with six sons, a brother and a nephew - in front of his wife, the Empress Helena. Their corpses were then flung outside, where they were gnawed by local dogs. The Empress was fined for attempting to bury them.No poet or traveller has been as intoxicated by Constantinople as the Conqueror. The Ottoman sultans already used Khan, Turkish for `emperor', in their title - as well as the Persian titles Padishah (Great King) and Shahinshah (King of Kings), and the Arabic Sultan (ruler). From 1453 Mehmed II, like his successors, also saw himself as heir to the Roman Empire and the only true Emperor in Europe. A few days after the siege, a Genoese living in the city wrote: `In sum he has become so insolent after the capture of Constantinople that he sees himself soon becoming master of the whole world and swears publicly that before two years have passed he intends to reach Rome.' Europe and Rome interested the Ottomans, as a field of expansion, more than Turkish-speaking territory in central Asia or the Caucasus. The Turkish metaphor for worldly dominion was the Red Apple. Before 1453 the Red Apple was believed to be the globe held in the right hand of a giant statue of the Emperor Justinian in front of Haghia Sophia. After the statue's destruction in 1453, the apple moved west and came to symbolize the Ottomans' next goal: the city of Rome. `To Rome! To Rome!' was the constant cry of Mehmed II's great-grandson Suleyman the Magnificent. For later sultans the Red Apple was Vienna, capital of the Habsburg Holy Roman emperors. Ottoman ambition had no rival. In comparison, the Shah of Persia was restrained, the King of France modest, and the Holy Roman Emperor provincial.The Ottomans were also inspired by a desire to equal the glory of Alexander the Great. Mehmed II identified himself so strongly with Alexander that he commissioned a biography of himself in Greek, from a minor Greek official, Michael Kritovoulos, on the same paper and in the same format as the copy of Arrian's life of Alexander in his library, which was read to him `daily'. A Venetian envoy wrote that Mehmed II `declares that he will advance from East to West, as in former times the Westerners advanced into the Orient. There must, he says, be only one Empire, one faith and one sovereignty in the world. No place was more deserving than Constantinople for the creation of this unity in the world.'The empire ruled from Constantinople by Mehmed II and his descendants was a dynastic state. Trapped in the prison of their own nationalism, Europeans often called the Sultan the `Grand Turk', and the Ottoman Empire `Turkey', as if it were a national state. Its official name conveys its dynastic essence: it was the `divinely protected' or `exalted' `domain of the House of Osman', or for short `tine Exalted', or `the Sublime State'. The governing elite of soldiers, officials and judges, and from the mid-nineteenth century all citizens, were called Ottomans, after the dynasty. Until the end of the nineteenth century, `Turk' was a pejorative term applied to Anatolian peasants.As the Habsburg dynasty created Vienna, so was Constantinople a creation of the Ottomans. They required a world city, worthy of their empire. Mehmed II and his successors called themselves `world-conqueror', `the King of the World'. One of the favourite epithets, both of the sultans and their city, soon became alem penah, `refuge of the world'. It appeared appropriate to create a multinational capital for an empire which, it was later calculated, contained seventy-two and a half nationalities.Multinationalism became the essence of Constantinople. A common literary device of Ottoman writers would be to compare the merits and looks of the many nationalities in the empire and its capital. In the fifteenth century national differences, based on history and geography more than race, could be acutely felt: Gennadios, first Oecumenical Patriarch under the Ottomans, called Greeks `a race than which there has been none finer on earth'. A medieval Polish proverb stated: `As long as the world is the world, the Pole will not be the German's brother.' Mustafa Ali, a prominent sixteenth-century historian, extolled as a source of strength the number of nationalities in the empire Turks, Greeks, Franks, Kurds, Serbs, Arabs and others. In the nineteenth century a minister of the Sultan, Cevdet Pasha, called the Ottoman Empire a great society `because its people spoke many languages and because it selected the best talents, customs and manners from among its various nations'. The variety of nationalities in Constantinople was proudly advertised in drawings, photographs and the composition of the Sultan's bodyguard; in the twentieth, in political processions and the deputation sent to depose a Sultan.Realpolitik, however, was the principal reason for Constantinople's variety of nationalities. In his new capital the Conqueror needed a large and prosperous population to service the palace and the state machine. Yet there were not enough Muslim Turks for Constantinople to be a wholly Turkish city. The majority of the empire's population, at this stage, was Christian. Turks were needed throughout the empire, to people Balkan cities and the Anatolian countryside. Accordingly, so the historian Kritovoulos wrote, after 1453 the Sultan gathered people in Constantinople `from all parts of Asia and Europe, and he transferred them with all possible care and speed, people of all nations, but more especially of Christians. So profound was the passion that came into his soul for the city and its peopling, and for bringing it back to its former prosperity.' In the new capital each mahalle or quarter (the basic living unit of the city, with its own places of worship, shops, fountains and night-watchmen) kept, with the name of its inhabitants' city of origin, its special customs, language and style of architecture.Turks were the first and largest group whom the Sultan brought to Constantinople. In the years following its capture in 1453 the city remained a ruin devastated by plague. The Sultan had to use an Ottoman technique known as surgun, or forced transfer of populations, to move Turks to his new capital. The chronicler Ashikpashazade wrote that the Sultansent officers to all his lands to announce that whoever wished should come and take possession in Constantinople, as freehold, of houses and orchards ant gardens ... Despite this measure, the city was not repopulated; so then the Sultan commanded that from every land families, poor and rich alike, should be brought in by force. And they sent officers with firmans to the kadis and prefects of every land ... and now the city began to become populous.Mehmed II personally went to Bursa to force artisans and merchants of this rich trading city to move to the capital. Laments still exist for the fate of the artists and craftsmen brutally transported from the comforts of the old Seljuk capital of Konya in Anatolia to the blood-stained city on the Bosphorus. At moments the Conqueror himself had qualms about his new prize, and withdrew to the former capital Edirne. Edirne had the treble attraction of tranquillity, proximity to hunting grounds and geography it was the natural mobilization centre for Ottoman campaigns in Europe. However, the Sultan's doubts did not last.Like Constantine the Great eleven hundred years earlier, when he summoned senators from Rome to Constantinople, and Peter the Great two hundred and fifty years later, in St Petersburg, the Sultan ordered `the pillars of the empire' to move to his new capital. He told them `to build grant houses in the city wherever each chose to build. He also commanded them to build baths and inns and market-places and very many and very beautiful workshops, to erect places of worship.' Mahmud Pasha, the ablest statesman of his reign, was one of the first to build his own mosque, now embedded in the warren of Hans (inns) and alleys beside the Grand Bazaar.The Conqueror also imported Greeks. Some areas of the city had never lost their Greek population. Psamatya, present-day Koca Mustafa Pasha, in the south-west of the city near the walls, had surrendered separately. It was therefore spared pillage - which explains the large number of churches there today. In the centre of the city, its second largest church, the church of the Holy Apostles, burial place of Byzantine emperors and model for St Mark's in Venice, by the Sultan's express wish remained undamaged. Mehmed II was at war with neighbouring rulers, both Christian and Muslim, in Anatolia and the Balkans for most of his reign. He conquered Trebizond, the Crimea, Serbia, Euboea, and the rival Turkish state of Karaman in Anatolia. As his empire expanded, more Greeks were taken by force to Constantinople. Greek slave peasants (freed in the next century) were settled in villages outside the city in order to ensure its food supplies.There was no religious barrier to Greeks and Turks living together. Christians are `people of the Book': their religion has been superseded by, but is not wholly alien to, the final revelation of Islam. Abraham and Mary are revered by Muslims; `Jesus on whom salvation be poured', as one Ottoman decree described him, is one of Islam's greatest prophets. According to Islamic law, as set out in the Koran, in return for paying a poll and other taxes, Christians received the status of zimmi, or protected persons, with the right to worship in freedom and to live by their own laws.Mehmed II went further. Owing to disputes between supporters and opponents of reconciliation with the Pope, there was no Patriarch in Constantinople in 1453; the Sultan could have left the see vacant and let it disappear, as many Orthodox bishoprics in Ottoman Anatolia already had. But the Conqueror was the most open-minded monarch of his age. His originality was to revive the Oecumenical Patriarchate which had presided over the Orthodox Church from Constantinople since the fourth century.One of the most learned and admired Orthodox churchmen was a Constantinople-born monk, George-Gennadios Scholarius. About 50 years of age, he had been leader of the Orthodox faithful opposed to union with Rome. Enslaved during the sack of Constantinople, he was treated with honour by his Turkish captors in a village near Edirne. There, in the words of Kritovoulos, confirmed by modern scholarship, the Conqueror sought him out, and gave him freedom and gifts: `In the end he made him Patriarch and High Priest of the Christians, and gave him among many other rights and privileges the rule of the Church, and all its power and authority no less than that enjoyed previously under the emperors.' He was consecrated and enthroned on 5 January 1454 in the church of the Holy Apostles.The document of appointment has not survived, and later Greeks exaggerated the privileges bestowed on Gennadios: in an anteroom of the patriarchate in Istanbul today hangs an improbable picture of Mehmed II and Gennadios, embracing as equals. Nevertheless the Patriarch was henceforward a servant of the Ottoman Empire. On payment of a large fee, the new Patriarch received confirmation in person from the Sultan, who addressed him with the formula: `Be Patriarch with good fortune and be assured of our friendship, keeping all the privileges that the Patriarchs before you enjoyed.'There was a bargain. The Sultan protected the Patriarch from rival Slav Orthodox churches, and Muslim fanatics. In return the Patriarch helped raise taxes for the Sultan and, in theory, guaranteed the loyalty of the Greeks and prevented them aiding the empire's Catholic enemies, Venice and the Papacy, both of whom had assisted in the city's defence in 1453, and were trying to reconquer it. As head of the Orthodox community, the Patriarch administered a separate Orthodox legal system, based on Justinian's code, with the power to fine, imprison and exile. Although weaker and poorer than its Western equivalent the Vatican, the Patriarchate of Constantinople was more important for its flock. It was the symbol and institution which kept faith and hope alive: after the conquest of Constantinople, the rate of conversion to Islam in Ottoman domainsdiminished.Mehmed II, who in all these measures took the initiative, appreciated Greek culture, as well as the prosperity Greeks could bring to his capital. Constantinople did, on occasion, serve as a door in the wall between Islam and Christianity. In either 1455 or 1456 the Sultan, with the dignitaries of his court, went to the Patriarch's residence and asked Gennadios to write an explanation of Christianity, which was translated from Greek into Turkish for the Sultan's benefit. Entitled A Short Outline of the Christian Faith, it is long and complex. It is hard for even a Christian to understand such remarks as `We believe that the Word of God and the man, which the Word of God put on, is the Christ; and whereas the life of Christ in his flesh was the life of a very holy man, the power of his wisdom and works was the power of God.' The Sultan nevertheless retained an interest in Christianity: among his collection of Christian relics were the cradle `in which Christ was born', which he told a Venetian envoy he would not sell for five hundred thousand ducats, and the armbone and skull of St John the Baptist.Some of his followers were less broad-minded. A few months after his consecration, Gennadios found a dead Turk in the courtyard of the church of the Holy Apostles. Even the Sultan himself might not be able to protect the Patriarch from an angry Muslim crowd ready to think the worst of Christians. Gennadios moved the patriarchate, its relics and treasures to the twelfth-century brick church of the Theotokos Pammacaristos, the Joyful Mother of God, in the district of the Phanar along the shore of the Golden Horn. Since the Sultan had settled many Greek captives there, it was solidly Greek.Armenians were another Christian element brought to Constantinople by the Sultan. They were a distinct nationality which had lived since at least the sixth century BC in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus. Since the Ecclesiastical Council held at Chalcedon - modern Kadikoy - opposite Constantinople in 451, both Orthodox and Catholics have held the belief that Jesus Christ is of two distinct natures, human and divine. Armenians, however, are Monophysites who believe that Jesus Christ has one nature, at once human and divine. Their use of the Armenian language and alphabet maintained their distinct identity, despite the disappearance of the last Armenian kingdom in southern Anatolia in the fourteenth century. They were prominent in the eastern Mediterranean as jewellers, craftsmen (especially builders) and traders skills which naturally appealed to the Conqueror. Kritovoulos writes that Mehmed II `transported to the city those of the Armenians under his rule who were outstanding in point of property, wealth, technical knowledge and other qualifications and in addition those who were of the merchant class'. This is the Sultan's smooth official version. An Armenian merchant called Nerses, writing in 1480, blamed the Sultan for raising `an immense storm upon the Christians and upon his own people by transporting them from place to place ... I composed this in times of bitterness, for they brought us from Amasya to Konstandnupolis by force and against our will; and I copied this tearfully with much lamentation.'Armenian tradition, reflected in an inscription on the facade of the present Armenian patriarchate in the Kumkapi district of Istanbul, asserts that Mehmed II appointed an Armenian Patriarch in Constantinople in 1461. In reality the Armenian Patriarch remained in Sis in Cilicia or Echmiadzin in the Caucasus, where he still is. Such historical myths are a tribute to the Armenians' desire to raise their position in the Ottoman Empire, and to Mehmed II's reputation as a supranational hero like Alexander the Great, whom different nationalities could invoke as a protector. Nevertheless as the Armenians grew in wealth and influence, the status of their bishop rose. By the seventeenth century he was recognized as an honorary Patriarch, or `prelate called Patriarch', and administered his own law-courts and prison like the Qecumenical Patriarch.North of the Golden Horn, in every sense opposite to Constantinople itself, lay the wealthy district of Galata. Since the thirteenth century it had been controlled and inhabited by Genoese. It had become the Shanghai of the Levant: a semi-independent colony taking control of regional commerce from the dying Byzantine Empire, as Shanghai would do from the dying Chinese empire four hundred years later. In contrast to Constantinople proper, Galata (also known as Pera, from the Greek word for `beyond') resembled a small Italian city, with Catholic churches, straight streets, well-built stone houses, and a piazzetta. Its tallest building, which still dominates the skyline today, was the pointed Tower of Galata, a Gothic monument strayed to the banks of the Bosphorus. In 1453 Galata was more prosperous and densely populated than the Byzantine city south of the Golden Horn.Genoa and the Ottoman Empire had long been allies. Nevertheless, many Galata Genoese had fought against the Ottomans; the Sultan said they had prevented him taking the city on the first day of the siege. Yet he was more interested in prosperity than revenge. A privilege he granted on 1 June 1453 in Greek to `the people of Galata and their noblemen' survives in the British Library. In return for submission, and payment of the poll tax, they would be protected subjects of the empire. They were allowed to keep their possessions, and `to follow their own customs and rites', except for `ringing their church bells and rattle' - a particular phobia of the Ottomans, who tolerated no competition to the call to prayer from the minaret. The citizens' weapons were confiscated, and part of the city wall was destroyed - all that survives today is a fragment near the Golden Horn, bearing the arms of the great Genoese house of Doria. Otherwise Galata was not punished. According to a letter written a few days later by the former podesta, or mayor, to his brother in Genoa: `He has also had lists made of all the property belonging to the merchants and citizens who have left here, saying "If they return, they shall have them back, and if not it will all belong to me."' Most returned.The Sultan liked to have Franks (that is, western Europeans) at his court. For many years he used a wealthy alum merchant of Genoese origin, Francesco Draperio, as an unofficial diplomat (his family is commemorated today in the church of St Maria Draperis, on Istiklal Caddesi). So fond was the Sultan of Galata's Latin ambience that he once entered a Franciscan church and watched a mass.As the Sultan's conquests extended, more Italians were brought to the city, in 1460 from Genoese colonies on the Aegean, and in 1475 from the Crimea. Italians, like Greeks, were useful to the Sultan. In the Adriatic and the Aegean he faced Venice, one of the great powers of the age, with a better navy than the Ottoman. Florence was the principal Italian rival of Venice. The Sultan therefore encouraged Florentines to move to Galata, granting them the houses of expelled Venetians; he even consulted the Florentine consul over his decision to declare war on Venice in 1463. That year the Florentines of Galata decorated their houses to celebrate the Ottoman conquest of the independent kingdom of Bosnia (which rapidly became an Ottoman bulwark, known as `the lion that guards the gates of Stamboul'). In 1465 the Sultan was the Florentines' guest at dinner in their chief trading depot, where he received `galanterie con tutte splendideza e magnificenza'. By 1469 fifty Florentine firms were operating in the Ottoman Empire. They imported silk, velvet, paper - most Ottoman documents were written on Italian paper - glass and fox pelts. Their main problems in `keeping the market moving'- a common phrase - came from plague and the Venetians, not the Ottomans.The example of Galata shows that, in Constantinople, East and West could live together. The Ottoman Empire was never, as Braudel claims, `an anti-Europe, a counter-Christendom'. Galata's merchant dynasties - the Testa, Draperis, Fornetti - were the longest established families in the city. Turks called them `sweet water Franks', in contrast to `salt water Franks' from Europe. A body of twelve counsellors, the Magnifica Communita di Pera, managed the churches of the Catholic community. Merchants met twice a day to discuss business in the equivalent of the Exchange in London, the loggia of the Palazzo del Commune, a Gothic building modelled on the Palazzo San Giorgio in Genoa. When the empire was at peace with Venice, the Bailo (bailiff) of Venice ran a law-court for civil cases concerning Venetian subjects (and other Europeans), whose decisions were enforced by the Ottoman authorities. He also organized a postal service which left twice a month, by land through the Balkans, to Cattaro on the Dalmatian coast, and then by sea to Venice. Letters between the two cities generally took about a month to arrive.Galata was a centre for pleasure as well as business. Every Lent there was a carnival: `One would think one was in a town in Italy,' wrote Marcantonio Pignafetta. Alvise Gritti was one of the many western Europeans who made his fortune on the banks of the Bosphorus. Born in Constantinople, where his father served as Venetian Bailo, debarred by illegitimate birth from a career in Venice, he lived in state in Galata (whose Turkish name Beyoglu, `son of the Bey', is said to come from the fact that his father was a Doge of Venice). A diplomatic agent of the Grand Vizier, and dealer in jewels, he was said to live as a Turk among the Turks and as a Christian among the Christians. In 1524, soon after his father became Doge in Venice, he gave a banquet in Constantinople for 300 guests, including Turks. They dined off deer, partridge and peacock. They were then entertained by women of Galata dancing with `such lascivious movements that they could make marbles melt', followed by a comedy, Psyche and Cupid, a tournament and a representation of the Portuguese occupation of Ceylon. A Turkish writer of the seventeenth century said of Galata, `Who says Galata says taverns - may God forgive us!': the beer iced, in summer, by snow brought from mountains above Bursa. Magnificently dressed, wearing all their wealth in jewels, the women kept the reputation, into the twentieth century, of the ability di fare di un santo un diavolo.Thus from 1453 Constantinople was capital, not only of the Ottoman Empire and the Orthodox Church, but also of that commercial subculture, native to the ports of the eastern Mediterranean, known as the Levant. Until the early nineteenth century Italian, language of commerce and the sea, was its second language, spoken by all Franks, most Greeks and Armenians, and some Turks. Numerous Italian nautical terms, such as caravel and bombarda, for types of ship, or iskele, from the Italian scala, for landing-place, entered the Turkish language. (In another reflection of the dominance of Italian, before 1830 English merchants referred to the ports of the eastern Mediterranean as `the scales of the Levant'.) A form of pidgin Italian, including French, Greek, Spanish, Arabic and Turkish words and known as Lingua Franca, was also common. Until the early twentieth century cries such as `Guarda! Guarda!' to avert collision, or `Monsu, arrivar!' to indicate arrival, could still be heard in the city. Under Mehmed II Galata was a subservient suburb. In years to come, it would exercise a powerful, finally an overpowering, influence on trade, culture and diplomacy in Constantinople.Like other world cities - Amsterdam in the seventeenth century, Vienna in the nineteenth, New York in the twentieth - Constantinople also attracted Jews. The Jews of Constantinople had suffered like its other inhabitants from the conquest. Hebrew poems survive, lamenting their enslavement and deportation, and the cruelty of the Ottomans. To replace them most of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire were brought to Constantinople against their will, by surgun. Forbidden to leave without official permission, they regarded themselves as `ensnared in the net of captivity'. Until the nineteenth century, the surgunlu remained distinct in ritual and tax payments from the kendi gelen, those who came voluntarily.For after 1453 Jews were encouraged to immigrate from Europe. A letter from one rabbi to his persecuted brethren in Europe burns with the fervour of a Zionist immigration prospectus, urging settlement in the Promised Land:Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow star as a badge of shame as is the case in Germany where even wealth and great fortune are a curse for a Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians and they devise all kind of slander against him to rob him of his gold. Arise my brethren, gird up your loins, collect all your forces and come to us.In `the refuge of the world', in contrast to western Europe, there were no restrictions on freedom of trade and few limits on the construction of synagogues. Jews soon flourished as perfumers, blacksmiths, carpenters and, in exceptional cases, tax farmers, bankers and doctors. With their new-found wealth they were able to outbid Christian and Muslim consortiums for the lease of Constantinople's customs. After the first decades, their history is that rarity in Jewish history, a happy story. In Constantinople the words pogrom, ghetto, inquisition had no meaning.From the late fifteenth century to within living memory the centres of Jewish life in Constantinople were the districts of Balat and Haskoy on either side of the Golden Horn, which had contained Jewish populations before the conquest. It was said that `the lads of Balat are real strong youths, those of Haskoy are just dried raisins.' The synagogues dominated Jewish lives. They maintained the customs and rituals of the locality from which the worshippers came, ran local schools and benevolent societies and arranged the payment of taxes to the government. Rabbis acted as judges in the Jewish courts, which enjoyed remarkable independence and had the power to legislate for Jews.The most successful Jew in Constantinople was a doctor, Giacomo di Gaeta, who had left the intolerance of Renaissance Italy for the haven of the Ottoman Empire. Physician to the Sultan, Yakup Pasha, as he was called after his conversion to Islam, won a privilege of tax exemption for himself and his descendants, whether Jewish or Muslim. Constantinople was a city of double identities. Like Gennadios, Alvise Gritti, and the Sultan himself, Yakup Pasha moved with ease between different worlds. He frequented not only the Sultan's palace, but also the house of the Venetian Bailo in Galata. There, probably on the Sultan's orders, he relayed disinformation to confuse Venetian policymakers, such as the claim, in 1465, that the Sultan had turned Christian.Greeks, Armenians, Italians and Jews were brought to the city mainly for economic reasons. The dynastic state itself imported a fifth racial element. The Ottoman government was called the Gate, from the part of the ruler's palace most visibly associated with power: Ottoman government was seen as the administration of the state and of justice in front of the Sultan's gate by his extended household and administrators. The main body of the Sultan's officials and soldiers were slaves known as kapi kulu, or `slaves of the Gate'. Their composition reflected Ottoman faith in racial variety. They were youths between the ages of 8 and 16, conscripted according to need from the rural Christian population of the Balkans and, less frequently, Anatolia, by the process known as devshirme or `gathering'. They could not be Turkish. After the conquest of Bosnia in 1463, although the Koran forbade the enslavement of Muslims, Muslim Slavs could be `gathered'. Muslims of Turkish origin could not.The youths' date of birth and details of parentage were recorded. They were then taken to Constantinople, circumcised and converted to Islam. The best looking and best born were educated in the palace school or a Pasha's household, and eventually entered government service. The others were `given to the Turk' - sent to farms in Anatolia to learn Turkish. They then worked as gardeners in the imperial palace, sailors in the imperial navy, or on building sites in the city. Eventually they joined the Janissaries. A force numbering some fifteen to twenty thousand, the Janissaries were the spearhead of the Ottoman army and the principal military and police force in Constantinople itself. They patrolled the walls, garrisoned the Seven Towers, enforced law and order, guarded the Patriarch and the Sultan himself.Some Christian families were heart-broken to see their children `gathered'. There was a song:Be damned, O Emperor, be thrice damnedFor the evil you have done and the evil you do.You catch and shackle the old and the archpriestsIn order to take the children as Janissaries.Their parents weep and their sisters and brothers tooAnd I cry until it pains me;As long as I live I shall cry,For last year it was my son and this year my brother.More worldly families were delighted to see their children secure a footing on the Ottoman career ladder. Slavery was less degrading in the Islamic than in the Christian world. Devshirme youths educated in the Sultan's or viziers' households had the chance to occupy the highest posts in the empire - and look after their relations. `Slaves of the Gate' were free from many of the legal restraints imposed on other slaves in matters of marriage and property. It was the Bosnian Slavs themselves who demanded to remain eligible for `gathering', despite their conversion from Christianity to Islam. A Venetian Bailo wrote that the Janissaries `take great pleasure in being able to say "I am a slave of the Grand Signior", since they know that this is a lordship or republic of slaves where it is theirs to command'. A hundred years ago, might not selected Irish Catholic youths have felt a similar pride, if they had been converted to Protestantism, sent to Eton and then told to govern the British Empire as servants of the Queen Empress?A specifically Ottoman practice, devshirme was particularly favoured by Mehmed II. An Italian wrote: `In this he shows a remarkable tenacity of purpose, as if by his own efforts he wished to produce a new people.' The process removed potential rebels and transformed them into loyal Ottomans. Moreover traditional Islamic `mirrors for princes', which were read by Ottoman bureaucrats, taught the advantages of racial variety. According to the Book of Government or Rules for Kings, if the Sultan employed different races, `all races endeavoured to surpass one another ... When troops are all of one race dangers arise; they lack zeal and are apt to be disorderly.'Distrust of Turks was, however, the main reason for `gathering'. One inmate of the palace wrote: `There are few native-speaking Turks in the palace because the Sultan finds himself more faithfully served by Christian converts who have neither hearth nor home nor parents nor friends. They conceive such an affection for his service that if it were in their power they would voluntarily expose a thousand lives for the life of his person and the increase of his empire.' Many of the Turkish Muslim elite, on the other hand, pre-dated and envied the Ottomans: there had been ancient Turkish states in Anatolia, like Rum and Danishmend, when the Ottomans were new arrivals. Mehmed II had experienced the dangers of a powerful Muslim elite: after a first reign of two years, he had been deposed in 1446. Probably at the instigation of the Grand Vizier Candarli Halil, a cousin and member of a family which had supplied three grand viziers, his father Murad II had then returned to the throne for two years. Out of fear of Western reaction, the Grand Vizier had continued to oppose Mehmed II's decision to attack Constantinople: he called it the `follies of an intoxicated youth'. Soon after the siege, Mehmed II had him executed. Henceforth most grand viziers, and pashas, were `slaves of the Gate': only five of the first forty-eight grand viziers after 1453 were native-born Turks. In disgust some Turks called the Sultan's council, or dime, `the slave market'.The presence of the Janissaries meant that many of the soldiers - and the great mosque builders and viziers - in Constantinople were Slavs. In 1542, according to a French traveller, in the palace `Sclavonian' (Serbo-Croat) was the language `most used and understood of all ... all the more since it is common to the Janissaries'. Contrary to what historians used to believe, slaves of the Gate were also able to straddle two worlds, maintaining contact from the capital with their family in the provinces. The Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha, for example, conducted negotiations with Serbia in 1457. If they led to a favourable peace and a higher tribute for the Ottoman Empire, it was no doubt because the highest official in the Serbian court, the Grand Voivode Michael Angelovic, was his brother.Some slaves of the Gate formed a Serb lobby in the capital, often in conflict with the Greek-dominated Patriarchate. The most prominent Constantinople Serb, and one of the most prominent figures of Ottoman history, was born Bajica Sokolovic in 1505, fifty years after the conquest,.in the small town of Visegrad on the Serbian-Bosnian frontier. A man of imposing presence, with a black beard and a hawk nose, he rose swiftly through the ranks of the devshirme, occupying successively the posts of falconer, Grand Admiral, vizier, Viceroy of Europe. Finally, from 1564 to 1579, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, as he had become, was Grand Vizier. Courteous, prudent, avaricious, he was a statesman with a world view. From his palaces in Constantinople he planned canals between the Don and the Volga and the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, in order to help Muslim states against Russia and Portugal respectively, sent munitions to Sumatra, helped select a new king for Poland, ordered pictures and clocks from Venice and arranged a successful peace with Spain, Venice and the Papacy, despite the Ottoman naval defeat at Lepanto, in 1573.Yet he kept links with his Serb roots. He placed relations in the Ottoman central government and in 1557, at his insistence, the Serbian archbishopric of Pecs was revived, against the wishes of the Patriarchate: his brother was the first Archbishop. Himself destined for the priesthood when `gathered' for the Sultan, he is said, on occasion, to have accompanied his nephews to church, on their visits to Constantinople.Architecture perpetuates the links between the two worlds of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. In Constantinople his wife Ismihan Sultan, daughter of Sultan Selim II, built him a masterpiece from the golden age of Ottoman architecture, the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha mosque by the old Roman hippodrome. Near his birthplace in Bosnia, the Grand Vizier himself commissioned an eleven-arched bridge over the River Drina, `one of the noblest spans you are likely to see'. Damaged in both world wars, twice rebuilt, it was finally destroyed by Croatian bombs in 1994.Twenty-four years after the conquest, in 1477, a census was taken by the city judge of Constantinople, for the personal information of the Sultan. There were, in Constantinople and Galata: 9,486 houses inhabited by Muslims; 3,743 houses inhabited by Greeks; 1,647 houses inhabited by Jews; 434 houses inhabited by Armenians; 384 houses inhabited by Karamanians of Armenian appearance; 332 houses inhabited by Franks (all in Galata); 267 houses inhabited by Christians from the Crimea, and 31 houses inhabited by gypsies. In all there were perhaps 80,000 inhabitants (excluding the slaves of the Gate). Constantinople was a city which defied nationalism, in whose streets Greek, Armenian, Italian, Lingua Franca, Albanian, Bulgarian and Serbian, as well as Turkish, Persian and Arabic, were spoken.The only multinational capital in Europe, Constantinople received names in more languages than any other city. Serbs, Bulgarians and Russians admired Tsarigrad - the city of Emperors. Armenians lived in Gosdantnubolis - the city of Constantine. In everyday language Greeks called it - as some still do - polis, the city: there is no other. Its official Greek name had been Constantinoupolis Nea Roma, after which Ottomans called it, on coins and most official documents, Kostantiniyye (which is also its name in Arabic). In literary Ottoman it was called Der-i Sa'adet, `the House of Good Fortune', since it had the good fortune to be the Sultan's residence, or Asithane, Persian for `house of state'. However its name, in everyday spoken Turkish, even before the conquest, was a corruption of the Greek phrase for `into the city', eis teen teen polin: Istanbul.Heads and feet, as well as names, demonstrated the city's multinational character. The inhabitants of Constantinople, whatever their religion, generally wore simple robes or tunics, like those of Gulf Arabs today, but of darker colours. Over the tunic they wore a dolman of satin or linen, padded with cotton in winter, and a sash. They laughed at western Europeans who spoiled their clothes with trimmings, pleats and slashes.Until the nineteenth century, in order both to demonstrate Muslim superiority and to foster national rivalries, the Ottoman government enforced distinctions of dress between the different communities. Only Muslims could wear white or green turbans and yellow slippers. Greeks, Armenians and Jews were distinguished respectively by sky blue, dark blue (later red) and yellow hats, and by black, violet and blue slippers. The rules governing the costume of religious minorities were regularly reasserted. In 1580, for example, `considering that their attitude from the point of view of the sheriat [Muslim holy law] and of logic should be humility and abjection',Jews and Christians were formally forbidden `to dress like Muslims', to wear silk, fur, or red shoes, and instead were enjoined to wear dark colours or blue. They were also repeatedly forbidden to live near mosques, to build tall houses or to buy slaves.Such reiterations show that the rules were often flouted: the status of Muslims was so attractive that the minorities' desire to resemble them was irrepressible. Individuals could also buy exemption from dress regulations. However, for most people most of the time, the clothes they wore reinforced their sense of belonging to a specific community. Contrasts of feature could reinforce those of dress.Most inhabitants of Constantinople still claim that they can tell by sight whether a neighbour is Turkish, Greek, Jewish or Armenian. In the nineteenth century, after the end of the dress laws, a travel-writer, Edmondo de Amicis, wrote that a Turk and Greek sitting beside each other, even if they were dressed in the same style, could at once be distinguished by the silent immobility of the former and the latter's `thousand changing expressions of life and eye' as he tossed his head `with the movement of a spirited horse'. In the first century of the empire, faces and gestures made plain the multinationalism of Constantinople.In 1477, the year of the census, the creator of this multinational microcosm, Mehmed II, was 47. To a page at his court, Gian Maria Angiolello, he appeared `of medium height, fat and fleshy; he had a wide forehead, large eyes with thick lashes, an aquiline nose, a small mouth with a round copious reddish-tinged beard, a short thick neck, a sallow complexion, rather high shoulders and a loud voice'. After a reign of conquest he now had time to relax in his capital.Like the city itself, he was a collection of contrasts: cruel and gentle, ruthless and tolerant, pious and pederast. He built schools and markets as enthusiastically as he ordered tortures and massacres. Regarding himself both as the supreme gazi, or warrior for Islam, and the new Alexander, he read, or listened to, the Koran, expositions of the Gospels, Persian poets, chronicles of emperors' popes and the kings of France, Arrian's life of Alexander, Homer, Herodotus, Livy and Xenophon. He treated language as an instrument of communication, not domination. Although not comparable to the great enemy of the Ottoman Empire, the Emperor Charles V, who was said to speak Spanish to God, French to gentlemen, Italian to ladies, and German to his horse, Mehmed II spoke Turkish, Persian, Arabic, and almost certainly had some knowledge of Greek and Serbo-Croat. In his poems he called himself not Fatih, the conqueror, but Avni, the herpes He was author of a typical Ottoman couplet:Footman, pour me some wine, for one day the tulip garden will be destroyed;Autumn will come soon and the spring season will be no more!Although he wrote and governed in Turkish, he revered Persian culture, which enjoyed some of the prestige, in the Muslim world, of French culture in eighteenth-century Europe. A further language was added to the polyphony of the city. Among the Persian scholars he attracted to Constantinople was the last great medieval Islamic astronomer, Ali Kuscu of Samarkand, who taught at the school attached to Aya Sofya. When Mehmed II discovered that another poet, although Persian-educated, was in fact Turkish in origin, the Sultan took away the ruined Greek church which had been given to him as a sign of favour.Persian culture was so influential that Ottoman, the language of the palace and the governing elite, although Turkish in structure, was partly Persian - and Arabic - in vocabulary: in the 1920s only 37 per cent of words in the dictionary were of Turkish origin. The complexities of its vocabulary and sentence structure made the Ottoman language one of the principal barriers to the spread of literacy and of contact with the outside world. To heighten the contrast with the simple Turkish of the street, `gilded' expressions were deliberately employed. When a famous calligrapher died, for example, it was said that `the dots of his script became transformed into moles on the cheeks of the houris of Paradise'. There were few rebels. A sixteenth-century poet, Yahya Bey, refused to be `the dragoman of the Persians' or `to eat the food of dead Persians', and wrote in vigorous Turkish. Yet he was not Turkish but a Janissary, proud of his Albanian birth.Mehmed II patronized Muslim scholars and theologians, often paying surprise visits to the college he founded beside his mosque, to listen to lectures and test teachers and pupils. Yet he was also a student of Greek philosophy, the greatest single patron of the Italian Renaissance medal, and the first Muslim ruler to appreciate Italian artists. Among the artists he invited to and employed in Constantinople were Matteo de' Pasti from Rimini, Maestro Paoli from Dubrovnik, and the medallist Costanzo da Ferrara.In the last years of his reign Constantinople was diplomatically, commercially and culturally part of Europe. In 1479, after sixteen years of war, Mehmed II made peace with Venice. That September, in answer to his request for `e good painter', the Doge's official artist, Gentile Bellini, came to Constantinople and was presented to the Sultan by the Bailo of Venice. Having spent the previous five years repainting the Hall of the Great Council in the Doge's Palace, for the next year and a quarter he painted portraits of Mehmed II and his court and erotic frescos (cosi de lussuria) for the `inner chambers' of the palace the Sultan was building on the easternmost point of Constantinople.By 1481, though only 48, the Sultan was emaciated and debilitated. Not even his viziers knew what country he was planning to conquer, when he died that year from blocked intestines, leading his army east from Constantinople into Asia. Certain circumstances attending his death make it likely that he was poisoned - possibly with the help of his Persian physician al-Lard, acting for his son Bayezid II.His death left his capital at a crossroads. It was a city like a chemical experiment, containing disparate elements that could either combine or combust. In theory a multinational dynastic capital, in practice it attracted conflicts between nationalism and empire, ambition and realism, love of the city and the desire to transform or leave it.
How can you improve your cash flow position?
Receive: bank loan, bank overdraft, Government grant, sell unused assets, lease assets, get trade credit and most of all reduce cost and increase sales!
What are the 3 types of lease?
Leveraged Lease Financial Lease Operating Lease
What is a contract thet lets you rent someone else's possessions?
lease
Is A lease as good as agreement to lease?
A lease in itself, is an agreement to lease. All the same.
What if your husband files bankruptcy and you have a leased car?
If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the lease, If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the lease, you If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the lease, you have If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the lease, you have to If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the lease, you have tohave If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the lease, you have tohave to If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the lease, you have tohave to give If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the lease, you have tohave to give the If you keep paying the lease, nothing happens. You are permitted to own or lease a car. If you don't pay the lease, you have tohave to give the car
What commercial lease is not commonly used Triple net lease Gross lease Net lease double gross lease double net lease?
Rent based on a percentage rent.
How soon can you cancel a lease without any penalties being incurred?
You need to review your particular lease. A lease is usually enforceable until the termination date in the lease agreement.You need to review your particular lease. A lease is usually enforceable until the termination date in the lease agreement.You need to review your particular lease. A lease is usually enforceable until the termination date in the lease agreement.You need to review your particular lease. A lease is usually enforceable until the termination date in the lease agreement.
Capital lease and financing lease are the same thing?
Finance lease and operating lease are different things.
If you lease a house can you lease it out to another?
You can sublet only if lease allows.
Can HUD break a lease?
They can TERMINATE a lease, if the lessee is in violation of the lease.
Is there a difference between a term business car lease and a commercial auto lease, or are they one and the same?
A car lease is an individuals person lease for their car. A commercial car lease is the lease for a commercial vehicle which are used for businesses.
Is it easier to get a lease or loan?
lease
