Иконы
140552126mFVern_fs 30-01-10/18 113222 15-03-01/ 8 15-03-01/13 dssdfsdf eee wewe iiii hpim5358
Ссылки
Богослов.ру
Архивы

After the Fall of Byzantium

After the  Fall of Byzantium

Commencing the last assault Sultan Mehmed II promised his troops three days of unbridled pillage of the city. Having stormed into Constantinople the Osmanli Turks used every moment to satisfy their instincts. In the rage of the battle with taking no notice of people they slaughtered everyone they met, and blood ran in torrents in the streets. The sackage broke out: the Turks rushed to the Palace of Blachernae and hastily took all the valuable assets out. Someone ran to Chora Churches and brought the precious shrine – the icon of Virgin Hodegetria, it was said to have been painted by Luke the Evangelist.  The Turks ripped the riza off and cut the icon into four pieces[1]. They dragged praying women and children by hair out of the churches and beslaved them. They raped nuns and murdered men on the spot.

At least they reached the great church of Hagia Sophia at the moment of celebrating the morning liturgy. The Turks broke into the main Orthodox Church just as the choir and the priest with the sanctified Gifts were leaving the altar. According to the legend, to prevent the shrine from desecration the priest started towards the south wall that opened before him (!), swallowed him up and immediately closed.

It is said, the priest with the Cup and the choir will appear again on the day Constantinople returns to Christian hands[2]. Even if it is a legend it becomes rather beautiful and symbolic. The Byzantine Empire was conquered physically but spiritually, by the grace of God, remained inaccessible to the invaders.

By evening pillaging was about over. More than 4 thousand non-combatant civilians of Constantinople were massacred by the Osmanlis in the streets and their houses, more than 50 thousand civilians were enslaved, with only 500 soldiers among them[3]. The number of casualties would have been different but at the beginning of the siege the Turks barely knew how many civilians were in the city.  The Osmanlis expected being confronted by a large force, about 50 thousand men, so they were “comfortably” massacring for the first few hours, and assuming there were enough slaves for everyone. At least they came to their senses and showed their “peacefulness”[4].

Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror, since he will be remembered with this name, and his cohort entered Constantinople and made their way to the Hagia Sophia. Ridden the horse into the church, he was silent for some time and ordered to transform the church into a mosque. Overwhelmed by the view of the splendorous Hagia Sophia the Sultan found himself ordering the Greeks, standing crowded at the wall and dreading to impending death by Omani sword, to be set free.

“But the history of the great city of Constantine has come to its end, it attained great renown, power, riches in its days and obscured all the cities had existed before and had drawn admiration with their fame, wealth, power, glory and many other virtues”[5].

Next day Mehmed II ordered to gather all the loot to split up. Surprisingly enough, the Sultan redeemed many notable Byzantine prisoners, including Loukas Notaras, and set them free. But the Italian prisoners were given no quarter. The Venetian Minotto and his sons were executed; the head of the Catalans Péré Julia, Catarino Contarini and Turkish prince Orhan were murdered either. Fortunately, Cardinale Isidore dressed as a threadbare beggar was not recognized and abandoned the city. But some trap, attracted by beautiful and rich clothes and dressed them, was executed as he had been taken for the Cardinale. Archbishop Leonardo of Chios had luck to slip out of Constantinople safe and sound[6].

However, in some days the suspicious Sultan was advised by his noblemen and had Loukas Notaras and his two sons executed. Willing to prop up his sons’ morale Notaras spoke to them, “Yesterday you saw all the losses we sustained during those ides of March.  Wonderful fame we had in this great city and, because of it, in all the countries inhabited by Christians, — was all lost. At this hour we’ve got nothing but our life. But it will not be eternal and some day or other all of us will die. Where is our Emperor? Did he perish yesterday? Where is my affiancer? Where is protostrator Palaiologos and his two sons? Did they fall in action? In the name of the Crucified for us, died and resurrected, we will die, and taste His goods with Him”. Even at his last hour Notaras did not faint. The father appealed to his executioners with the only request to die after the boys, who he wanted to encourage in their extreme moments. Doesn’t that draw heavily on the picture of Saint Maurice’s and his children’s slaughter?

Then nine great officers of the Byzantine Empire were decapitated. Yet, the Sultan was sorry for what he had done and ordered to have some of his councillors executed as they had suggested killing the Greeks. Georgios Scholarios (1454-1456) had the most luck, he was found and introduced to the Sultan, who ordered to elect Georgios Scholarios to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The enthronement of Georgios would take place on 6 January 1454[7].

On June 21, 1453, Mehmed II left the devastated and beggarly city for his capital Adrianople. He even felt sorry for that ruined beauty and glory: “What a city was put to destroy and pillage!”, – he whispered through tears[8].

And some days before, on June 9, 1453, three ships from Constantinople landed the island of Crete bearing news of the end of the Great Empire. Breaking news followed to Venice, and soon all Christendom learnt of the ghastly disaster. Europe was seized with heaviness with panic and confusion rampant everywhere. One correspondent described his mood to Pope Nicholas V in the following way, “What could be more terrible than the news arrived about Constantinople. My hands are unsteady even when writing, my heart struck”. But responses differ. As an instance, the Council of Venice took the decision to send an ambassador to Mehmed II notifying him of permanence of the commercial treaty they had entered into before. It is worthy of note that on the resolution of the Council all the property including clothes, the Byzantines-emigrants brought to Venice,  was subject to forfeiture in favour of the Republic (!) – by all means the Venetians wished to pay for damage by the conquest of Constantinople. Genoa took the similar stand fearing to lose its trade routes and unavoidable damages[9].

And only Pope Nicholas V had not a doubt of calling for a powerful and immediate counter-attack in the form of a crusade to rescue Constantinople. On September 30, 1453 he sent the bull to all Christian European monarchs preaching a crusade. Cardinals Isidore of Moscow and Basilius Bessarion backed him actively, calling to some persons with their own epistles and praying to join the general religious activity. And their calls evoked an enthusiastic external response everywhere[10].

Unfortunately, the crusade didn’t take place. The German emperor was poor and didn’t obtain the required forces. King of Aragon Alfonso was old, War of the Roses rose in England, France was resting from troubled years of the Hundred Years’ War. A great number of volunteer insignificant sovereigns, even single nights, appeared but it required the forces to have been joined to. But there was nothing of this kind. This could have been fixed relatively soon but Pope Nicholas V died in early 1455, and his successor Calixtus III (1455-1458) didn’t have any authority[11].

But in 1459 next Pope Pius II (1458-1464) convened a congress to reconcile the mutual animosities of the Latins. In his impressive speech he said, “We ourselves afforded the Turks to conquer Constantinople, the Eastern capital. While we are light-heartedly staying indoors and lounging away our time, these barbarian armies are making their way to the Danube. They killed the successor of Constantine the Great and all his people, desecrated houses of God, dishonoured the famous Justinian’s cathedral with nasty Muhammad’s cult. They destroyed Our Lady’s and other saints’icons, knocked the altars over, threw the relics to pigs, killed off all the priests, cut noblemen of Constantinople, removed the icon of the crucified Savior to their camp with mockery and abuse,  desecrated it with mud and spittle. It happened under our very eyes but you were slugged sleeping heavily”[12]. He succeeded to open local hostilities but only separate Mediterranean islands were regained from the Turks.

Splinters of the Holy Roman Empire didn’t survive Constantinople for long. In 1460 Thomas, the Despot of Morea, had to abandon his motherland and emigrated to Rome taken a great shrine with him, the head of  St. Andrew the First-Called. His son Andrew, considered the lawful heir of Roman kings’ throne, giving patents of nobility to western aristocrats for potential help, had no real power. His sister Zoe, or Sophia Palaiologina, married to the Moscow Prince, Ivan III. By that time Morea was fully captured by the Turks, and the last Christian Greek regions were to follow[13].

In 1459-1460 the first troops of Mehmed II appeared on the borders of he Empire of Trebizond. In spring of 1461 the Ottoman fleet, gathered in Constantinople, and land forces, concentrated in Brus, marched off. As always the Sultan organized the march perfectly, and his troops did not want for anything. Sinop was conquered, and on August 14 of the same year, the Turks came right to Trebizond. The last Emperor of Trebizond, David, was delivered an ultimatum – either to surrender or put the city to a total destruction. David refused to resume “Constantinople tradition” and come to the Sultan with his wife and children. He was shipped off to Istanbul, many local Greek youths were duly enlisted into the Turkish corps, girls were enslaved. But other Greeks were allowed to inhabit Trebizond upon kharaj payment. After that the Holy Roman Empire was said to be completely conquered by the Ottomans[14]. Mehmed’s II dream came true…

Thus, millenarian (and if we calculate from the founding of Rome, two-thousand old) the Holy Roman Empire went down and it became a reality. The genetrix of Christian civilization, centre of Christian Orthodox culture, living bearer of imperial ideal and old traditions died. Though it was “the empire of hard forms”, as it is sometimes named, seeking to Christian ideal at the expense of reality oftentimes, but now without Byzantium there is neither knowledge of this ideal nor “the guide” being able to show the way to this ideal in this world. “This is Eastern Civitas Dei (“city of God”), where the Church might be the heart and crowning of Christendom incarnated in the Kingdom. The Kingdom is some sacred hold of Church, its temporal projection. And therefore there is practically no perfect line between them: all that concerns the Kingdom will concern the Church and vice versa. Byzantium is characterized by the constant wish to solidify faith and life in the final forms, to draw everything to the constant eternal principle”[15].

The Byzantine Empire was a vital ideal of Christian statehood, we talked about it before and there is no sense to repeat it. The Roman Empire tended to identify itself with the Heavenly Kingdom,  political Ecumene – with the Universal Church, state law – with Christian ethics, with personal recognition of a man based not on his ethnic group but his belonging to the Empire and Orthodoxy. Quoted the perfect modern historian А.N. Bоkhanov as saying, the Roman Empire made the saving spacefor all the peoples of Ecumene, “a candle of Orthodoxy” regardless of its territory changes. Byzantium was the only carrier of Christian imperial idea of “translation confessions” (“faith translation”), instead of Roman paganish «translation imperia» («power translation»).

Caesar was at the top of this “eternal principle” (even those who agree with the high opinion of Byzantium speak about it by no means always), essentially Byzantine “symphony” could neither form nor exist without him. The monarch had unlimited authority, being absolute in his powers, in its turn his autocracy depended on his emperor’s vassalage to Christ. The king of Romans was the vicar of God on the earth, and that was absolutely true for his contemporaries with all the basileus’s rules and duties consequented.

Even if the monarch unexpectedly forgot his power ground, ignored it, his kingship ended the same day. But it is physically impossible under conditions of Byzantine political culture developed in Ancient times and Byzantines’ legal consciousness. The emperor could be excused for many things: mistakes, violent temper, unsuccessful wars, impecuniosities, loss of territories, but treason against Orthodoxy, losing the image of a Christian king. And the king’s conformity to the ideal image was constantly and intensely controlled by the whole society. It is no coincidence that one scientist speaking about Byzantium used the term that should simply sound as public monarchy” – that is correct to a certain degree[16].

Generally speaking, the role of people (if we include Senate, Church, army and different partiers in it) identifying emperor’s personality is rather wide in comparison with the traditional monarchy with the power being inherited. But there is no warrant for such a belief that ancient Roman notions of people being the source of state power remained unchanged till the last days of the Roman Empire and being the ground for this practice. The part of people represented by their groups in the fate of the supreme power depended on judging if the Emperor conformed to the image of the orthodox king, people acted as ”a guard of piety” according to the saying of Holy Fathers. As far as the Church and the state were joined into organic unit in Byzantium, there is nothing false and inconsequent in this fact. Naturally, the value never depends on  the list of criteria, had discussed beforehand in the form of short list – as a rule, general characteristics and some notions with absolute value are used. One of those criteria was Orthodoxy in the context of the state “commonwealth”. All the rest belonged to the field of particular details.

So even Emperor John’s V Palaiologos conversion to the Roman Church (though that time there was no such a word combination, and as a mere formality the monarch confessed the truth of the Latin version of Creed and submitted to the supremacy of the Pope) did not lead to his fall as the basileus acted for the good of the Church and the Roman Empire. The Byzantine society being delicate and sensitive to the nuances of the real events favoured the monarch’s private sacrifice to save the motherland.

The Emperor was the partition wall of the whole Latin Christian civilization. And irreversible consequences arose not even after the fall of Constantinople — the Morea in the Peloponnese was formally left, but after the death of the last legal monarch, St.Constantine XI Palaiologos. Certainly his death on the battlefield marked the end of the Christian Empire history.

They all passed before us, from Saint Constantine the Great to Saint Martyr King Constantine XI. Not all of them were genius, and the characters like emperors Julian the Apostate and Phocas the Soldier were seldom to meet – but only Andronikos I Palaiologos to some extent. Descendants would describet them, “They were severe and energetic people without remorse of conscience and mercy, with imperious temper, with the firm will, trying to be more frightening then loving. But with that they were statesmen inspired with the thought of Empire splendour, famous generals spending their life on the battlefields among the soldiers they appreciated and considered the source of imperial power. They were skilful administrators with persistent and hard-bitten energy, stopped at nothing if it concerned commonwealth”[17].

The piety degree of the kings differed as well but Orthodox Church lived its standard life. There is an interesting statistics: among 99 reigning emperors and empresses no one was anathematized by Church. But 25 autocrats and two porphyrogenitus    tsarevnas, excluding patriarch Saint Stephen I, natural-born tsarevitch, and locally revered in some regions of Western Europe Emperor Honorius, children born out of wedlock and close relatives of Basileuses, were glorified!

Quite explicable emperors’ errors and shortages were compensated by Church, people, aristocracy, at least government standards of jurisprudence in Byzantium. For the illustrious monarch became an all-powerful catalyst of social processes, could create incredible things, impossible for another governor of the different political formation. For instance, Saint Constantine the Great turned Christian religion into the state law of the Roman Empire or as the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty, Komnenos, Laskarid or Palaiologos dragged the Empire out of disaster. And on May 29, 1453 the emperor died…

The history of human civilization is known for the downfalls of great states even empires. Long before the birth of the first Byzantine emperor the Assyrian and Babylonian Babylonish kingdoms, Egyptian  and Persian empires,  the state of Alexander the Great, then  the Hunnish empire, Gothic civilization, the Hunnish state and the Arabic caliphate appeared and fell. But none of the well-known precedents could not be compared with fall of Constantinople in 1453 fro its disastrous effects on the human history.

With the fall of the Roman Empire the Christian world became quite different. It stopped being unique, oecumenical, Roman, the world was falling to pieces. In accordance with the peculiarities of Teutonism calling no attention to an ideal, moral constituent of the imperial concept, having no idea of Byzantine “translation confessions” (“faith translation”), longing for “translation imperia” (“power translation”), national interests of separate European countries commenced to predominate over  the Christian values. And Teutonism was not prepared to accept the image of a Byzantine monarch rising above- the Teutons required “Primus inter pares” controlled by free people. The difference between two civilization types was marked a little later against the putrefying German Empire, “confederative federation” with the elected and weak emperor. This putrefaction process had been displayed before 1453. But that time the German Empire was close to the Roman one making the Teutons strain after perfect structures, imitate them willingly or not. And after it had fallen, “the German model” took the single position — deathwards, the Teutons did not even think about.

Furthermore, some narrow-minded persons in Western Europe associated the fall of Constantinople with “inaccuracy”, “impracticability” of its political, juridical and cultural traditions, as well as confusion of the Greek Church was attributed to its “schism”. It ignited the centripetal forces in Western politics and  European political philosophy and uncritical development of really false Catholic ideas in theology. And such state of things led to the fact that the Roman Church moved far and far away from patristic practice and commenced to trespass with novels (of dogmatic and canonical character), dictated by instantaneous reasons.

Having lost the secular opponent, the Roman Catholic Church continued slow fading. In some decades following the downfall of Constantinople it will be afflicted by the new Schism caused by of a powerful branch of the western Christianity, Reformation and Protestantism. There will appear new war, and blood of the European Christians would run in torrents.

The Thirty Years’ War 1618-1648 that led to full exhaustion of the Western Europe, to destruction of the German Empire and crushing of Catholicism reached the apogee in opposition of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. As a result of Peace of Westphalia of 1648 the German Empire will be divided into 300 independent states and more than thousand the imperial dominions which had almost independent status. Exhausted by war, Western Empire lost 75 percent of its population as a result of the all- Europe slaughter18. Then «Illuminators», the French revolution – «brotherly by its nature», but bloody in reality, the First and Second Vatican Convocations, «old Catholics» and «Lefebvrists» would appear.

In political sphere the natural consequence of realization of the Teutonismus led to the situation when entire Western Empire lost the last evidences of any unity. It ceased to be «empire» in literal sense of this word. Orthodox Confession of Faith of any person and his conformity to the power of the Byzantine Emperor meant for Eastern Romans that he was also «Roman» regardless to his ethnic background. George Pletho’s amendments to ancient traditions and Hellinization of aristocratic layers had a very weak effect on Byzantine Thought. At least it is explained by the fact that Pletho himself was not the Christian, but more likely, the neopagan19.

Erstwhile so was it in Western Europe either, where was a necessary development model, coming from depths of unrecorded time. But process of disintegration of political system into independent political entities begun at Charles the Great children time and led eventually to that Roman Empire began to associate with only one certain nation.

Just after 1430 a word combination «deutsche Lande» («the German lands») began to appear in increasing frequency in official documents. But as besides Germen it included Hungarians, Scandinavians and Poles, specification — «Аlеmaniса nаtiо, «the German nation» was brought. In 1441 concepts «Sасrum Imperium» («sacred empire») and «germanica nation» («the German nation») were united in documents, and in 1486 for the first time the official name – Holy Roman Empire of German Nation («Heiliges Rumisches Reich Deutscher Nation») appeared. Xenophobia sharply increased, and soon Germans began to demonstrate straightforwardly the antipathy to Frenchmen and Italians. There were German prophecies according to which Germany should have incurred a leadership in the world, and once again would seize it when elected a strong emperor, reformed Church and chose the Pope not in Rome, but in Mainz, having replaced Ecclesia Romana to Ecclesia Germanica20.

Process of «nationalization» of the German Empire as it is possible to guess passed under the aegis of «the personal rights», opposed to «commonwealth».

In this process of disintegration did not remain any more not only the Roman Spirit, but also Charles’s the Great Spirit. A national state with global domination ambitions, – typically pagan motives of pre-Christian times. Almost simultaneously with Germans the similar ambitions were declared by Frenchmen and Englishmen. In a course time three empires – French, English, German appeared without any chances to close with each other and later launched the First World War. Certainly, they ideology didn’t implicate any idea of Christian unity.

The generated western statesmanship was called the Roman Empire. As Constantinople destructed this historical aberration, a decision was made either to erase its spirit that was impossible, or to distort memory about great state of Eastern Romans-Greeks, to eliminate the competitor claiming to the role of successor of Holy Roman Power. Already E. Gibbon in XVIII century succeeded in proving that all history of Roman Empire from the moment of conversion to Christianity makes the period of gradual and steady decline. But nevertheless he did not dare to refuse to name «Roman Empire» the Empire of St. Constantine the Great. Its followers still were less constraining: in 1863 in Europe the term «Byzantium» (according the ancient name of Constantinople – Byzantium), earlier to nobody known and not used anywhere was invented. And memory of the great world state was sequestered: it was claimed Byzantium to have been only a part Holy Roman empire, left in «schism», occupied by Greeks, and effected by Hellenic and oriental culture influence. In other words the country did not belong to western civilization.

And even though it soon was nailed down the term left to be. It has an interesting history- it gained positive context, as a part of history of Holy Roman Empire from the moment of conversion to Christianity till the fall of Constantinople. So the name «Byzantium» sounds romantically and nobly, as though this state was not of this world.

Cardinal changes touched, of course, not only the West. Deprived of its Defender and Head, Oriental Orthodox Church changed, having incorporated second-class people in the eyes of Turks. Earlier the Church and the state were united by the power of Roman Emperor. And though actually his power could be very weak, sometimes almost nominal, ideally he still was head of the Christian Universe, the representative of God before people and Christians before God. Emperor had gone, and Church appeared separated from the state, that time — Ottoman empire. Earlier some patriarchs were worried by excessive as it seemed to them, interference Basileus into church affairs. Their dream came true: the tsar didn’t supervise over clergy any more, but Constantinople eparch, «Ecumenical patriarch», was appointed by a Moslem21.

Political submission of the Eastern Church to the Ottoman sultan did not add to it viability. Moreover, all most negative phenomena, including apostasy, a papistry and simony, were blossoming. One can draw some even more disgusting examples, but it is enough to tell that not only cathedras, but also the patriarchal see were bought.

But dream of the Christian Ecumene governed by a single emperor, anointed of the Lord, did not disappear. And in far Russia the doctrine of «Moscow – the Third Rome» was being elaborated at the same period. Russian orthodox civilization a surprising, unique one, grown up nevertheless on the Byzantine roots, arose.

Certainly, Byzantine heritage couldn’t replace Byzantium. Being even dreamlike the idea of reunion of all Christians in fold of Ecumenical Church and Empire seemed illusive, but it had chances for realization while Roman (Byzantine) Empire existed. This state was so majestic with the ancient history, deepest culture that all other alternative and latest «empires» simply could not be compared to it. Despite all diligence, during the after Byzantium epoch Ecumenical Church couldn’t reunite, and it caused quite obvious, though and slowly-developing processes of dechristianization of mankind.

«The world has gone from Christianity — such is «modern history» fact, — wrote not so long ago archpriest Alexander Shmeman (1921-1983). — Epoch of Christianity power of over the world has come to end by deliverance from this power. Medieval synthesis with its attempt to resolve primary antagonism of Church and «this world » failed. But this new rupture is not simply returning to early, pre-Constantine state of affairs. Then Christians headed towards victory. Now the victory is in the past and turns around defeat. Then the world yet didn’t acknowledged Christianity, now it hasn’t already acknowledged it any more. However it would like to keep something from its Christian past — Christian« principles «and» bases »… We live in a world that is full of Christian «monuments». And when it doesn’t confront with Christianity, it is even ready to recognize its «sources» as Christian ones. And still it is necessary to be mentally blind not to see what really inspires, moves our history. It is new and already completely not Christian «revelations» like dying belief in terrestrial progress, in terrestrial happiness. And so-called “Christian principles» appear powerless in front of a wave of brute force, cynicism and lie. Alas, the history’s highway has already been passing by Christianity for a long time”22..

It is not for nothing that our world more and more gets interested in Byzantium. Even today, in epoch of pragmatism and altered consciousness when freedom of person is associated with his consumer abilities and possibility of satisfaction, interest to it hasn’t gone. One can be assured that neither any culture nor any state has drawn for more than 500 years of history such attention and interest, as power of orthodox Roman tsars. In Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Czech Lands, Slovakia, Romania, Great Britain, Russia — just everywhere, where Byzantium left a material or spiritual trace, and even in the USA, it draws attention of millions. Millions Byzantium fans and fans of history of this unique state have published hundred thousand researches and monographs on various aspects. Byzantium both today and earlier was capable to reconcile a Catholic with a Protestant and them together with the orthodox Christian as it bears in itself a collective origin.

We search for the lost truth, we search for our history. And we will find them with Lord’s help.

 

1 Michael Doukas.  History. Ch.39 p. 98

2 Evtushenko Grigory , priest. Hagia Sophia in Constantinople

3 Krivotul Mikhail. Historic Enquiry. Ch.67. P. 70.

4 Michael Doukas.  History. Ch.39 p. 98

5 Krivotul Mikhail. Historic Enquiry. Ch.72. p. 75.

6 Runciman S. The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Pp. 294,295,298,299.

7 Michael Doukas. History. Ch.41 p. 106, 107

8 Krivotul Mikhail. Historic Enquiry. Ch.68. P. 71.

9 Runciman S. The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 p 322.

10 Crowley Roger. Constantinople. The Last Siege of 1453. Pp. 314

11 Runciman S. The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 p 328 — 331.

12 Crowley Roger. Constantinople. The Last Siege of 1453. Pp. 318

13 Uspenskiy F.I. The History of Byzantium Empire. Vol.5

14 Karpov S.P. The History of the empire of Trebizond . Pp. 431-437

15 Shmeman Alexander, archpriest. Destiny of Byzantium theocracy//. Shmeman Alexander, archpriest. Collected Edition 1947-1983. Moscow, 2009. Pp.620,621.

16 Gribovskiy V.M. People and Power in in Byzantium. Results of historic dogmatic enquiry. St.Petersburg, 1897. Pp. 241, 242.

17 Diehl Ch. Histoire de lempira byzantine. 1947. Pp 70, 71.

18 Razin E.A. The History of Art of War. 5 volums. Vol. 3. . St.Petersburg, 1994. P.436

19 Runciman S. The Great Church in Captivity. The history of Orthodox Church from The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to 1821. P. 137.

20 Rapp F. holy Roman empire of German Nation. Pp. 336-338.

21 Runciman S. The Great Church in Captivity. The history of Orthodox Church from The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to 1821. P. 174.

22 Shmeman Alexander, archpriest. Destiny of Byzantium theocracy// . Shmeman Alexander, archpriest. Collected Edition 1947-1983. P.17


 

Добавить комментарий

Войти с помощью: