Why was Constantinople so hard to Siege?
- Thread starter ArKhan
- Start date
As long as the Byzantines had naval superiority and crop-growing regions out of the campaign area, they could supply themselves from the sea, due to the massive harbor area. So yes, it was the presence of very strong walls and a seaborne logistical system in conjunction with each other.
Well, for most of its history it was a large city which could accommodate a lot of defenders. It's walls were not merely formidable, but massive, and reasonably shock absorbent. Also there were two sets, and sea walls too. For its size, the city had a really small front to defend, as it was mostly surrounded by sea. The city also had adequate cisterns so lack of water wasn't generally a huge fear. Also, the city had a formidable reputation, and was believed to be the special city of St. Mary, giving a Psychological edge to the defenders. As capital of the empire, its defense was always the first priority, so it was never put in a position where it might have been sacrificed for strategic reasons. Being in the center of the empire, it was also difficult just to get to.
Huehuecoyotl
Monthly Donor
Indeed. An invading force would have to be daft to try to best the Byzantines navally (well... before 1453, any way).
Yes, though the walls are also a big deal.
http://www.arkeo3d.com/byzantium1200/landwall.html
http://www.livius.org/cn-cs/constantinople/constantinople_land_walls.html
I hate to sound like a completely shameless fanboy, but they're unusually impressive walls. The easiest way to approach the city, if a foe, is by sea.
I wish, I really wish, I could agree.
Unfortunately, 1204 is an excellent example of naval failure by the Byzantines. There are other examples, but in this context, it needs to be mentioned...and may those responsible for that day rot in hell. At least the Ottomans were honest foemen and not backstabbing so-called fellow Christians.
Last edited:
Heck, with some noteworthy exceptions, the navy was in pretty bad shape ever since about the time the Macedonian Dynasty ran out in the mid-11th century.
Even before that the Byzantines were never a naval power in the way that say, the Italian Maritime Republicans were. They got the job done most of the time though.
Yeah. And even before that, its still a surprisingly weak element of the Byzantine Empire - not useless, but by and large, the navy is at best distinctly second rate compared to the army.
MNP said it better.
This being said, the Byzantine navy was rarely so weak as to make it viable to approach from the Sea Walls, or to starve the city (assuming there was somewhere to ship food in from).
A not entirely irrelevant issue, too: Most of the time, great men rose to the top in a crisis. Heraclius, anyone?
Its not really accurate to say that could be counted on, but it happened enough that it ought to be noted. At least until 1204, and everything about the empire as a power went downhill after that.
Well the navy wasnt really weak. 1204 it was under the Angeloi
You see after the fall of the theme system the byzantine navy and army came to be havily centralized. They were excellent when commanded by a strong emperor because they would look to the emperor to make the decisions. Should an emperor who is careless, weak and inept take the throne the military system would fall apart. The Roman navy was mismanaged by the Angeloi, at the start of the 4th crusade, the Roman navy numbered some 12 flea bitten old ships facing them was over a hundred venetian ships.
In fact the byzantines as long as they had a strong emperor the Navy was actually quite powerful. Throughout the Kommenian era it numbered some 40-80 ships strong. Due to Angeloi that number decreased to 12. Also under the paleologaie a short revival was made with 80 ships but... due to Adronikos II said navy was completely disbanded. Bad idea. The Byzantine navy was actually very powerful, under Alexius I Kommenos his megas Doux John Doukas was one of the most brilliant admirals of his day. However due to increasing reliance n foreign mercenaries the Byzanine fleet got screwed over and shoved aside.
Anyway back to topic, like elfwin said the walls were a pain to besiege. Heck COnstantinople had one hell of a defense system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yymXqXabqls
Watch this video for some more info on how powerful the Roman defenses. Watch all 5 parts, in part 2 you can see how the walls were built
more direct link to walls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg_qPhbGHxs&feature=related
You see after the fall of the theme system the byzantine navy and army came to be havily centralized. They were excellent when commanded by a strong emperor because they would look to the emperor to make the decisions. Should an emperor who is careless, weak and inept take the throne the military system would fall apart. The Roman navy was mismanaged by the Angeloi, at the start of the 4th crusade, the Roman navy numbered some 12 flea bitten old ships facing them was over a hundred venetian ships.In fact the byzantines as long as they had a strong emperor the Navy was actually quite powerful. Throughout the Kommenian era it numbered some 40-80 ships strong. Due to Angeloi that number decreased to 12. Also under the paleologaie a short revival was made with 80 ships but... due to Adronikos II said navy was completely disbanded. Bad idea. The Byzantine navy was actually very powerful, under Alexius I Kommenos his megas Doux John Doukas was one of the most brilliant admirals of his day. However due to increasing reliance n foreign mercenaries the Byzanine fleet got screwed over and shoved aside.
Anyway back to topic, like elfwin said the walls were a pain to besiege. Heck COnstantinople had one hell of a defense system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yymXqXabqls
Watch this video for some more info on how powerful the Roman defenses. Watch all 5 parts, in part 2 you can see how the walls were built
more direct link to walls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg_qPhbGHxs&feature=related
Well, to use an example from the Komnenoi era - look at the consequences of John II trying to revoke Venice's trading concessions. That...didn't go very well for John.
Still, it was generally acceptably competent. I think its not so much the collapse of the themes directly as the weakness of the state's finances - good navies are expensive. So is the army, but the Komnenoi emperors focused more on the army than the navy (this is not a criticism, just an observation).
Greek fire also seems to have been a great asset when defending Constantinople, while talking about the navy's role. Not so useful outside that for various inconvenient reasons, but very useful in that that context.
Still, it was generally acceptably competent. I think its not so much the collapse of the themes directly as the weakness of the state's finances - good navies are expensive. So is the army, but the Komnenoi emperors focused more on the army than the navy (this is not a criticism, just an observation).
Greek fire also seems to have been a great asset when defending Constantinople, while talking about the navy's role. Not so useful outside that for various inconvenient reasons, but very useful in that that context.
Agree but you should still look at that documentory it explains very well COnstantinoples walls. Look at part 2
Also i that documenory you will see just how formidable COnstantinople sea defense wasAgree but you should still look at that documentory it explains very well COnstantinoples walls. Look at part 2
Indeed. Weakest point in the defenses is after all relative.
Is much as I don't like the Ottomans I have to agree they were at least fair. The only thing I don't like is that they made Constantinople their capital. It should've been something a little less...foreign.
Last edited:
Anaxagoras
Banned
Since the city was surrounded on three sides by water, the only approach was against the land walls unless the Byzantines lost naval superiority on the waters surrounding the city. And even if they DID lose naval superiority, the sea walls around the city were formidable as well.
I read (but can't recall where) that a great many people were expelled from the city during or shortly before the 8th-century Islamic siege, with a self-evident effect on endurance.
The bulk of the city is also situated on a peninsula, isn't it? That means there's only one approach to defend, so long as the waters are clear of enemy ships.
It had to be brought in via aqueduct, but since the city had seriously gigantic cisterns it was pretty safe.
Last edited: