Talk:Fall of Constantinople

Unit conversion

> weighing 500 kilograms (1,100 lb) over 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi)

If you do not have data that those projectiles which broke the Theodosian Walls were thrown for 1.497km (or so), and weighed 498.9kg (or so), then those "500 kilograms" are "1000 pounds", and "1.5 kilometres" are "1 mile" - because "500 kilograms" and "1.5 kilometres" clearly look like approximations

Serbians

There are no valid sources talking about 1500 imaginary Serbian Cavalry helping in the battle. Why has it still not been removed? Even if there were Serbs taking part in the battle they were taking part as Ottoman Janissaries.

Recent edits

@~2026-31685-36 please explain your opposition to my edits. You have reverted several notes that I added and got rid of new images and a new subsection.

You also said that I have made a "complete mess of the infobox", whilst reverting it to a state in which Ottoman casualties are said to have been "200–18,000[12] (first day) Heavy: 15,000–50,000 (disputed)"... I don't understand the logic. Anyways, I will revert again. Also, as a general rule, please remove only the things you disagree with and don't blanket revert everything. Thanks. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You completely removed older, higher estimates in favor of your own, newly added ones. I don't see you discussing this before your edits, which is why I changed it back. Casualties on the Ottoman sides were definitly more than just a low estimate of 3K. Even Ottoman and Byzantine historians would agree that a siege of at least 1 month long would cause much more losses on both sides. Your numbers and sources don't realy make a lot of sense. ~2026-31685-36 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is still not a justification for reverting my (and other peoples' subsequent) edits wholesale. The larger figures were removed because they are either outdated or outright false. Kaldellis (2026) says: "At the upper limit, therefore, Mehmed might have brought 60,000 soldiers to Constantinople, beyond which his camp also swelled with thousands of non-combatants and animals, making the army seem larger". I believe that having an infobox which states "100,000–130,000 in total (Western sources)[note 2] 40,000–50,000 in total (Turkish sources)[7][8] 60,000–80,000 in total (Modern sources)[7][9]" is counterproductive, don't you agree?

As to the Byzantines, the infobox said "30,000–35,000 armed civilians" took part in the siege based on the Britannica source, even though there were barely 25,000 to 30,000 people in Constantinople itself at the time. Kaldellis (p. 96) says: "Giacomo Tetaldi estimated that the population of the City was 25,000 or 30,000 men— presumably he means people—an estimate that is consistent with the latest scholarship on the question; he adds that only 6,000 or 7,000 were fit for combat".

In regards to the casualties, the 4,500 number for the Byzantine soldiers is simply not true. Nicolle (2002), a source which is cited to support that number, states that "4,000 Greeks died in the siege". Not 4,500 and not soldiers. In addition, the "Heavy: 15,000–50,000 (disputed)" numbers for the Ottoman casualties is unsourced. The infobox was a mess overall.

Obviously, all of this couldn't be explained in a tiny edit summary. Please don't revert my edits wholesale again and please at least read the sources. Hopefully, this clears everything up. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Huge error in numbers

Guys who changed the numbers??? Ottomans didnt had 60k soldiers nor only 3400 dead, they had 10,000 dead the first day, and whatsap t do you mean byzantines only had 8000 soldiers and 800 dead, completely untrue, change it to the old numbers, wich was 60-100k army, 30,000 killed, byzantines 9,000 proffesional and 30,000 armed civilians and 5,000 killed and wounded ~2026-32759-90 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a joke

Talk about wikipedia, they begging people for donations and then do this... Letting peasants change numbers as they please, thank god the majority of people nowadays don't take wikipedia seriously now ~2026-32759-90 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for the numbers you are claiming? ... discospinster _talk 22:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I do, i have read maybe 10 books about this particular siege, i visited all museums in Istanbul talking about it, I visited museums in Greece talking about the fall of their beloved city, in short, i've been to both worlds, and these numbers claiming the death count for both side is under 4,000 in military deaths is just pure fantasy, any historian in the world would disagree, it's an actual disgrace im fuming right now this is a real page, but nobody will take this page seriously anyway ~2026-32759-90 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree 4000 seems low but we gotta look at what the sources say. Of those ten books you've read, why not use some of them as sources to support your claims on actual military deaths? Masterhatch (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you actually want me to bring proof of why 3,400 military deaths is impossible?? I will do whatever you want if you bring me one historian telling you that casualty count from the Ottoman side. It was a 53 day siege, assault after assault each day, infantry assaults, against the most well defended city in medieval times, tripple layered theodosian walls, this calculates to 64 ottoman casualties each wave, oh come on man, it's laughable. ~2026-30925-50 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, i agree the numbers seem low. BUT! We need sources, preferably the reliable kind. Provide sources that give different numbers and we'll begin there. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Will you change the numbers if i provide sources to you on this chat? I'm not experienced in changing numbers on the page. ~2026-30925-50 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If your sources meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then you don't need me. Check out Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Masterhatch (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

So go ahead and cite any of those books. How do you think Wikipedia will be taken seriously if we just let anonymous editors change numbers any way they like? ... discospinster _talk 23:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey! I’m the user who originally changed those numbers last week before I had this official account set up.

You were totally right to call me out for not citing my sources back then—Wikipedia shouldn't just let people change history without proof. I took your advice seriously, went back, and dug up the actual data.

Yesterday, I updated the page with proper academic citations (including specific ISBNs and page numbers from modern historians like Steven Runciman and David Nicolle) showing the accepted consensus of heavy Ottoman losses and tens of thousands of Byzantine casualties during the final sack of the city.

Unfortunately, as soon as I put the real proof up, someone completely wiped out my cited edits and put those unverified fringe numbers (3,600 vs 840) right back in. I'm not sure who is doing it now, but it's clear someone is trying to force an un-cited, non-neutral agenda onto the article.

Now that I've provided the exact academic proof you asked for, I’d really appreciate it if we could get the page reverted back to the accurate, cited version. Thanks! HistoryMarch05 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Inaccurate Infobox Casualty Figures

The current infobox casualty figures (3,600 Ottoman KIA and 840 Byzantine KIA) are un-cited and completely contradict modern academic consensus. These numbers appear to be taken out of context from isolated primary sources tracking specific days, completely downplaying the scale of the 53-day siege and the final three-day sack of the city.

Per the guidance of editor ArchivioItalia, I am presenting the standard, reliable sources below to establish a correct consensus range:

• Steven Runciman (The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521398329): Runciman documents that the Ottomans suffered massive, disproportionately heavy losses during the multiple failed frontal assaults against the Theodosian walls over the course of the 53 days. He also details that thousands of defenders and civilians were killed during the final breach and subsequent sack (pp. 145–148).
• David Nicolle (Constantinople 1453: The End of Byzantium, Osprey Publishing, ISBN 978-1841765617): Nicolle highlights that the 7,000–8,000 defenders fighting from elevated, fortified positions inflicted severe, heavy casualties on the Ottoman vanguards, irregulars, and elite Janissary units throughout April and May (pp. 68–72).

Based on these sources, I propose updating the infobox casualties to the following standard historical consensus:

Ottoman Casualties:

• Heavy
• 15,000–30,000 casualties

Byzantine Casualties:

• ~4,000–5,000 killed (including both combatants and armed civilians during the siege and the sack)

Input from other editors is welcome so we can finalize this consensus. HistoryMarch05 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Following up on my initial proposal regarding the casualty figures, I would also like to address the Ottoman troop strength listed in the infobox. The page currently lists the lower bound of the Ottoman army at 60,000 men. However, looking at the exact same modern academic consensus, this figure is outdated and understates the actual size of the main force.

According to our primary reliable secondary sources:

• Steven Runciman (The Fall of Constantinople 1453): He states that the regular combat forces of the Ottoman army numbered around 80,000 men, excluding irregulars, bashi-bazouks, and the massive non-combatant support train (pp. 75–77).
• David Nicolle (Constantinople 1453: The End of Byzantium): His analysis of the Ottoman archival estimates and troop registers points to a realistic military strength of between 70,000 and 80,000 regular soldiers, which scales up closer to 100,000 men when factoring in the auxiliary forces and elite Janissary units deployed at the front lines (pp. 42–45).

Because a figure of 60,000 underrepresents the consensus of modern scholarship, I propose updating the Ottoman strength line in the infobox to show 70,000–100,000 combatants. This aligns perfectly with the updated casualty data and paints an accurate picture of the scale of the campaign. HistoryMarch05 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think User:HistoryMarch05 has done a reasonable job at presenting sources that support his view that numbers are too low. Does anyone out there have thoughts? Masterhatch (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I cannot locate the casualty numbers in his sources. I must ask for direct quotes in this case, as the answers also seem AI-assisted. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The casualty figures of 3,600 and 840 currently in the infobox lack any supporting academic citations. If you believe these numbers are accurate, please provide a peer-reviewed source or a standard historical volume that explicitly states them.

As noted in the discussion, reliable historians (Runciman, Babinger, etc.) describe the siege as involving "heavy" and "bloody" losses, which contradicts the low figures currently on the page. I am happy to review any academic source you can provide that justifies the current numbers. HistoryMarch05 (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well the strength of the Ottomans were around 80,000–100,000 as represented by the provided sources

It is impossible to give a serious estimate of the Ottoman armed forces. The figures cited by contemporary observers vary widely. Chalcocondylas sets them at 400,000, Ducas at 265,000 (including 15,000 Janissaries), Phrantzes at 258,000, and Niccolò Barbaro at 165,000. But even the last-named figure is probably an exaggeration. The Ottoman Empire at the time was not large enough to muster 165,000 trained men. Any figure above 80,000 must have included the masses of camp followers who never failed

• Babinger, Franz (1978). Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01078-6.

Venetians spoke of a hundred and fifty thousand. In probability, to judge from Turkish sources, the regular troops numbered some eighty thousand, excluding the irregulars, the Bashi-bazouks, who may have added another twenty thousand, and the non-combatant camp-followers, of whom there must have been several thousand.

• Runciman, Steven (1965). The fall of Constantinople, 1453. Internet Archive. Cambridge, University Press. p. 76. ISBN 978-1-107-60469-8.

But agreeing to your point I found nothing about the numbers of casualties, the best I could find was as follows:

Some 20,000 irregulars (bashi-bazouks), screaming and running at top speed, rushed the Land Wall but after two hours of bloody and merciless fighting the heavily armoured defenders had left only heaps of Turkish dead on the ground. The Anatolian army regulars failed equally miserably and assaults against the Sea Wall were also fiascos.

• Dougherty, Martin J. (2011). Great Battles. Parragon. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-4454-2436-1.

At close range these encounters favored the better-armored and protected defenders, but even the Greek and Italian eyewitnesses were impressed by their enemy's courage under fire. "The Turks fought bravely at close quarters," remembered Leonard, "so they all died." They were raked by fire from the walls from longbows, crossbows, and arquebuses, and the carnage was terrible. Having found their cannon unusable for firing heavy balls, the defenders had reinvented their artillery pieces as huge shotguns.

• Crowley, Roger (2013-02-12). 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4013-0558-1. ArchivioItalia ✉ 03:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate the depth of your research, ArchivioItalia. You have successfully identified the core problem: modern historians like Runciman and Babinger generally refrain from providing specific, unverifiable casualty tallies, and instead emphasize the "heavy," "bloody," and "merciless" nature of the fighting.

  Given that the current infobox figures of "3,600" and "840" have no basis in the academic literature you've helped uncover, they effectively function as unsourced speculation.

  To maintain the accuracy and integrity of the article, I propose we remove the specific, low-ball numbers and replace them with a notation that reflects the consensus of "Heavy" or "Significant" losses, citing the descriptions of "terrible carnage" and the intense, multi-wave assaults documented in the sources you've provided. This aligns the infobox with the academic consensus rather than maintaining outliers that are not supported by the literature. HistoryMarch05 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@HistoryMarch05 calling my additions as having "no basis in the academic literature" is just weird considering the fact that I cited quite a good source on the casualties. And, please, I would prefer if you spoke in your own words.

Anyways, @Archivio Italia, I don't mind compromising and keeping the current infobox as is, as long as it's properly sourced. Currently, I have a few issues with the additions. The Crowley source, regarding the Byzantine casualties, talks about a very particular event (close-range fighting before the final attack) which happened on/around 18 April 1453 in which all defenders present at that event died. It's not an estimate about the entire battle. Meanwhile, 20,000 Ottomans leaving "heaps of Turkish dead" also doesn't mean that 20,000 Ottomans died, I believe.

I also call for the reversal of Ottoman forces to 60,000. Anthony Kaldellis (who I have cited in the article) has done a great job fixing the overestimations of past scholarship. I would not mind a range of 60,000 to 80,000 either, though, but I believe that anything other than that is certainly an overstimation.

Lastly, since it is impossible to verify the casualties, as scholarship cannot give an exact number, to my knowledge, I propose removing all numbers and simply adding "Heavy" to both, something which seems to be supported by sources. I will not proceed with this yet, as I would like to hear opinions from multiple editors on this. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

fair enough I am more than ok to change the casualties of the Ottomans to Heavy or Large but I still haven't found the claim about 10,000–30,000 Ottomans killed so this was the closest I got ArchivioItalia ✉ 23:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@ArchivioItalia and @Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah, I have been reviewing our discussion regarding the casualty figures for the Ottoman forces. While I previously advocated for the 15,000–30,000 range, I have since re-evaluated the scholarship. I now agree with @Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah that forcing a specific numerical estimate on these casualties is essentially speculative, as the primary sources provide no reliable census.

Moving forward, I believe "Heavy" or "Significant" is the most academically rigorous way to label the casualties. It captures the reality of the losses described in our sources without pretending to be a tally we cannot verify.

To resolve the confusion in the Ottoman strength section, I propose we consolidate the conflicting figures (which currently display 80,000 and 100,000) into a single, clean range. Based on the scholarly debate, I suggest:

Strength (Proposed Revision):

Total: 80,000–100,000 men

Regulars: ~55,000

Janissaries: ~5,000

Irregulars: 20,000–40,000

This structure is not only cleaner but accurately reflects the variability in the irregular forces while acknowledging the established estimates for the professional core. Does this move toward a consensus satisfy everyone? HistoryMarch05 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@ArchivioItalia and @Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah, I would also like to propose an update to the infobox image. I suggest replacing the current image with Le siège de Constantinople (1453) by Jean Le Tavernier (c. 1455). This panoramic composition more effectively illustrates the entire theater of the conflict—including the land walls, the Golden Horn, and the naval blockade—which provides the reader with a clearer understanding of the siege's complex topography and multi-front nature. I believe this change would substantially enhance the article’s visual clarity and help readers better grasp the strategic scope of the event. Are there any objections to this revision? HistoryMarch05 (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Great, I will proceed with a few changes discussed here, tell me whether you think they're fine or not. I have no opinion regarding the infobox image at all, however note how if it's replaced, it must also be replaced in the "Legacy" section so it doesn't end up duplicated. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah 20,000 irregular were not part of Ottoman main army which was 80,000 but they were separate forces as mentioned in the sources provided by me, I am just gonna change that ArchivioItalia ✉ 05:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

ArchivioItalia The figures don't make sense now though, right? Forgive me if I'm seeing this wrong, but I'm seeing: 80,000 soldiers in total, 55,000 being regulars and 5,000 being Janissaries... This adds up to 60,000. However, there's also 20,000 irregulars, bringing the total up to 100,000? I don't understand how this is supposed to work. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah the 20,000 irregular troops are mentioned by the historians separately as in the sources below :

Venetians spoke of a hundred and fifty thousand. In probability, to judge from Turkish sources, the regular troops numbered some eighty thousand, excluding the irregulars, the Bashi-bazouks, who may have added another twenty thousand, and the non-combatant camp-followers, of whom there must have been several thousand.

• Runciman, Steven (1965). The fall of Constantinople, 1453. Internet Archive. Cambridge, University Press. p. 76. ISBN 978-1-107-60469-8. ArchivioItalia ✉ 09:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, the issue was with the numerical inconsistency. The article showed 55,000 regulars, 20,000 irregulars and 5,000 Janissaries which, somehow, added up to 100,000. I inflated the regular number to 75,000 so it makes sense. I hope it's okay now. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I fully support Trabzonlu at this case. The numbers makes sense now. ~2026-37133-49 (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense now thank you very much Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah ArchivioItalia ✉ 00:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Byzantine vs roman

Why are we using the term Byzantine? makes no sense considering this term wasnt used by the romans or by anyone until 104 years after the empire fell. Id just like an explanation Scurvybubble242 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)