Mehmed II ( Ottoman محمد بن مراد İA Meḥemmed b. Murād ; born March 30, 1432 in Edirne ; died May 3, 1481 near Gebze ), called Ebū ʾl-Fetḥ (أبو الفتح/ 'Father of Conquest') and posthumously Fātiḥ (فاتح/ 'The Conqueror'), was the seventh sultan of the Ottoman Empire . He ruled from 1444 to 1446 and then from 1451 until his death. On May 29, 1453 he conquered Constantinople and thus sealed the end of the Byzantine Empire . Due to his numerous conquests, he can be described as the second founder of the Ottoman Empire, alongside Osman I. , for which he created the territorial, ideological and economic basis.
Mehmed II was born as the fourth son of Sultan Murad II on March 30, 1432. His mother, Hüma Hatun, was a slave of unknown origin. The two older half-brothers Ahmed (* 1420) and Alâeddin Ali (* 1430) died in 1437 and 1443 under unexplained circumstances. The living conditions of the half-brothers named Hasan and Orhan could not yet be researched. Another half-brother, Küçük Ahmed, who was born around 1450 by the prince's daughter ( İsfendiyar ) Hadice Halime Hatun, was, according to consistent reports from Ottoman chroniclers, on the orders of Mehmed after his accession to the throne in 1451 as a diaper (presumably) by Evrenosoğlu Ali Bey to suffocate in the bathroom. Of the children of Mehmed II, the sons Bayezid , Mustafa and Cem as well as two of probably four daughters - Ayşe and Gevherhan - are known by name.
|Hüma Hatun||Murad II||Concubines|
|Concubines||Mehmed II||Ahmed||Alâeddin Ali||Hasan||Orhan||Küçük Ahmed||Daughters|
Since the sources do not report any personal ties between Mehmed and the incongruous concubines of his harem, only the mothers of his sons appear worth mentioning, namely Gülbahar Hatun as Bayezid's mother, Gülşah Hatun as Mustafa's mother and Çiçek Hatun as Cem's mother. According to his father's decision, for reasons of power politics, Mehmed had to enter into a proper, befitting marriage in 1449 with Sitti Hatun, a daughter of the Turkish dynast Dulkadiro ğlu Süleyman Bey from Elbistan . There are no children from this connection. When he moved from Mehmed's harem to Constantinople, Sitti Hatun remained unnoticed in Edirne, where she died in 1467.
That the alleged heir to the throne Bayezid Osman (also Calixtus Ottomanus and Turchetto ), who was brought up as a child in Constantinople and as a teenager in Italy, also a son of Murad II and thus a half-brother of Mehmed, who is attested and described in European sources, but not in Ottoman sources could not be proven. Bayezid Osman was entertained and promoted by popes, kings and emperors for decades as a possible sultan after a hoped-for victory over Mehmed II, but was neglected after Mehmed's death. His seal bore the designation "Bajsit Ottman Tvrcorum Imperator" and a crescent moon with four stars. He died unnoticed in 1496.
Whether the in Constantinople of Constantine XI. Supervised and financed by Mehmed II. Prince Orhan, who described himself as a contender for the sultan's throne, was actually a grandson of Bayezid I and thus belonged to Mehmed's generation of uncles, is unclear. He died in the course of the conquest of Constantinople . It is unclear whether he threw himself off the city walls out of desperation and resignation or whether soldiers on the run seized him and executed him. In any case, it is certain that his severed head was brought to the Sultan.
A boisterous and rebellious spirit is ascribed to the child Mehmed. He refused to obey and take teachings. Teaching successes remained low at first. In particular, the instruction in questions of faith and in the reading of the Koran was hardly fruitful. Therefore Murad II gave his son into the care of Molla Ahmed Gürânî, who had studied law and Koran studies in Cairo. Murad II is said to have given him the right to chastise, which Gürânî also exercised. Molla Hamideddin, later professor in Bursa and Istanbul, is named as a further educator.
As early as 1437, after the death of his half-brother Ahmed, Mehmed is said to have been appointed Prince-Governor (Çelebi Sulṭān) of Amasya . What is certain, however, is that in the spring of 1443, accompanied by his Lālā Kassabzâde Mahmud and Nişancı İbrahim b. Abdullah Bey, as governor of Manisa ( Sanjak was sent Saruhan).
The death of Prince Alâeddin Ali in 1443 put Mehmed at the age of eleven in the role of heir to the throne. He was brought to Edirne at his father's side to gain insight into government affairs. With the appointment as sultan in 1444 he got the two Lālā Zağanos and Nişancı İbrahim, the Beylerbey of Rumelia Şehâbeddin Pascha and the Grand Vizier Çandarlı II. Halil Pascha and the magistrate Molla Hüsrev assigned. While Zağanos, İbrahim and Hämling (Hadim) Şehâbeddin rather warmongering influence took the Grand Vizier tried a moderating influence on Mehmed, the conquest of Constantinople sat even at this time to the destination, inspired by reading legend-like, Turkish and Arabic worded vitae of Alexander the Great and Caesar . Serious conflicts arose again and again between Mehmed and the Grand Vizier, among other things because, as Italian and Ottoman sources report, Mehmed was influenced in 1444 by the ideas of a Persian, by name unknown messenger of the Ḥurūfī sect, who wanted a reconciliation between Islam and Christianity propagated in the spirit of Sheikh Bedreddin . The dispute between Mehmed on the one hand and Halil Pascha and the Mufti Fahreddin on the other ended with the execution of the messenger who was favored by Mehmed. This process confirms Mehmed's inclination to heterodox religious opinions, which persisted for life and challenged Mehmed's religious teaching successes.
Mehmed's education also served his governorship and his participation in the military campaigns of his father after he had ended the first sultanate of Mehmed in 1446.
The Islamic scholar and healer Sheikh Akşemseddin - also valued by Murad II - had extensive influence as a teacher and advisor on Mehmed since 1451 at the latest. He motivated and supported the Sultan in his plan to conquer Constantinople . In his opinion, Mehmed and the Ottoman Army had the potential to be the agents of this conquest, praised by the Prophet Mohammed according to a hadith . The hadith reads:
« لتفتحن القسطنطينية فلنعم الأمير أميرها ولنعم الجيش ذلك الجيش »
" La-tuftaḥanna l-Qusṭanṭīniyya fa-la-niʿma l-amīru amīruhā wa-la-niʿma l-ǧaišu ḏālika l-ǧaišu "
“Verily, Constantinople will be conquered. How excellent is the commander, the commander [of Constantinople]! And how excellent is the army, that army [which conquered Constantinople]! "
Mehmed's way to power
When Murad II withdrew from the sultanate around September 1, 1444, he appointed Mehmed, who had been with him in Edirne since the spring of 1444 and had an insight into the affairs of government, as the imperial governor of Rumelia with his seat in Edirne and commanded in a statement to the Kapıkulu and Pashas in the plain of Mihalıç , in future to consider his son Mehmed as Padishah . In this way he wanted to prevent the Prince Orhan, who was in Constantinople under the care of the Emperor, from making claims to the throne as a pretender.
Since the Hungarians broke the peace concluded a few months earlier in the presence of Mehmed in autumn 1444 and advanced together with a crusader army, Murad II was forced to intervene in Mehmed's affairs of state and lead the campaign against the Christian army. After winning the battle of Varna , he finally left the sultanate to Mehmed, withdrew from his duties as a ruler and set up his retirement home in Manisa.
When the Janissaries rebelled against the young sultan in 1446, ostensibly because of a pay increase, devastating fires broke out in Edirne, and Şehâbeddin Pasha narrowly escaped the soldiers who were presumably incited by the Grand Vizier Halil Pasha. The revolt (Buçuk-Tepe Vaḳʿası) - the first in the history of the Janissaries - ended with an increase in the daily wage by half a (buçuk) Akçe and led to the renewed accession to the throne of Murad II, who had been called by the Grand Vizier. Murad II sent his son back to Manisa as governor, but participated in several military campaigns such as in 1448 as a troop leader in the battle of the Blackbird Field . After the death of his father, Mehmed was enthroned on February 18, 1451 in Edirne as Sultan Mehmed II. It cannot be conclusively answered whether the takeover of Mehmed II went completely smoothly. While Chalcocondyles reported an uprising (the Janissaries?) Ultimately prevented by the Grand Vizier, there is no reference to such unrest in Ottoman chronicles.
Mehmed II's military campaigns renewed and consolidated Ottoman hegemonic rule on the Balkan Peninsula and in Anatolia. He succeeded in establishing and securing a great Ottoman empire, which Bayezid I failed to achieve in the Battle of Ankara in 1402. His mostly successful campaigns were supplemented by a skilful alliance and peace policy. Mehmed's first major goal was the conquest of Constantinople , which lay as the remainder of the Byzantine Empire and enclave within the Ottoman possessions at the geographical intersection of the two land masses of Anatolia and the Balkans.
The conquest of Constantinople
Even under Mehmed's father Murad II, the Ottoman Empire had consolidated itself after a phase of crisis. On this basis, Mehmed was able to intensify the offensive against Constantinople. To keep his back free, he first signed peace treaties with Hungary and Venice in 1452 . Thanks to the well-trained and constantly developed artillery units of the Topçu , the capital of the Byzantine Empire fell on May 29, 1453 and was shortly thereafter declared by Mehmed to be the throne of the Ottoman Empire:من بعد تختم استنبولدر/ min-baʿd taḫtım İstanbuldur / 'henceforth my throne is Istanbul'.
Through this act Mehmed II received an unprecedented charisma in the Islamic world and was able to claim to the Mameluk Sultan of Egypt that he was now the only one in the Islamic world who held the sword of the religious struggle (ġazā) in his hands. As a result, he was regarded as the commander expected in Muhammad's hadith and also settled asابو الفتح/ Ebū ʾl-Fetḥ / 'Father of Conquest'. He saw himself now as "Emperor of the Romans " (قیصر روم/ Ḳayṣer-i Rūm ) and thus deliberately placed himself in the continuity of the empire of the Rum Seljuks and the Eastern Roman Empire .
When it fell to Mehmed, Constantinople no longer had any political significance as an eastern empire and antipole to the western European empire, but its fall nevertheless triggered a shock wave of horror in Europe. With the end of the Christian East Stream, the two-state doctrine that had previously been valid no longer existed. According to the eschatological interpretation of this doctrine of the world empire, the predicted appearance of the Antichrist could go hand in hand with it. The fact that Mehmed II had the same name as the Prophet Mohammed made it easier to integrate the Antichrist model into the political and religious discourse on the Turks. The conquest of Constantinople increased Christianity's fear of the Turkish threat and was perceived as an epochal turning point that moved the pan-European public . This threat from the empire of Mehmed II led to another attempt to revive the idea of the crusade .
Attempt to conquer Hungary
In the battle for the key fortress of Belgrade on the Danube , which Mehmed claimed as a former part of Serbia , which had been subjugated since 1455 , the sultan failed in 1456 due to the resistance of his personal adversary, the Hungarian imperial administrator Johann Hunyadi and in particular to the Christian crusaders of the preacher Giovanni da Capistrano . During the disordered storm of the crusader lay army, which operated under the leadership of the aged Capistrano and also overran Mehmed's main camp like a blow, the wounded Ottoman military leader had to order the defeated army to flee.
The clergy celebrated the first great Christian victory in the Turkish wars as a sign of God and "miracle of Belgrade". The rural population in Capistrano's crusade army, mobilized by the papal appeal and religious propaganda, had, unlike the organized and aristocratic heavy armored riding of the companies of Nicopolis and Varna , brought about an unexpected outcome.
Despite this defeat, Mehmed was able to withdraw Serbia and Bosnia from the territorial influence of Hungary and integrate the area into his empire. As a result, Hungary lost the inner strength to drive out the Ottomans.
Extension of dominion in the Mediterranean and Black Sea area
In 1461 Mehmed II successfully besieged Trebizond on the Black Sea, the last relic of the Byzantine Empire and capital of the Comnenian Empire of the same name , which made a pact with the Akkoyunlu Uzun Hasan, Venice and the successor states of the Kingdom of Georgia against Mehmed II. Its ruler, David Megas Komnenos , handed the city over to the Sultan, was first a state prisoner and then executed out of fear of conspiracies. The defeated empire was largely Islamized.
From 1463 to 1479, Mehmed II was at war with the Republic of Venice , with the fighting mainly taking place in the Peloponnese as well as on the Greek and Adriatic islands. He strengthened the Ottoman fleet with the aim of ending the Venetian maritime hegemony . In 1470 he was even able to conquer an island with Negroponte ( Euboea ), which in fact had been under the rule of Venice since the triumvirate .
His fleet and army even advanced as far as Italy and took the city of Otranto in 1480 . According to Mehmed II's Ġazā ideology, this conquest was the first step on the way to Rome . In the Sultan's worldview, as the successor to the Eastern Roman emperor, he also had primacy over Western Rome, the new " golden apple " (قزل الما/ ḳızıl elma / literally 'red apple'), with whose ingestion he would be the emperor of the entire Roman Empire. After Mehmed II's death, however, Otranto had to be given up again.
Securing rule in Anatolia
Mehmed II successfully advanced the efforts of his predecessors to get all of Anatolia under Ottoman rule. Delayed diplomatic negotiations with Venice and Hungary and the associated pauses in war in the West enabled him to lead his troops to Anatolia.
His campaigns against the principality of Karaman , which began in 1468 and wanted to evade Ottoman power through a pact with the Turkmen Akkoyunlu, were successfully concluded in 1474 with the incorporation of the Beylik into the Ottoman state. Mehmed II secured the eastern border of his empire by finally defeating the Akkoyunlu Federation , rivaling the Ottoman Empire, led by Uzun Hasan and allied with the Republic of Venice, in the Battle of Otlukbeli in 1473 with his army equipped with firearms. In the peace treaty, the Euphrates was set as the western border of the Akkonyulu state. The eastern border of the Ottoman Empire thus appeared secure. In the southeast, the Turkish Beylik Dulkadir , connected to Mehmed II through his wife Sitti Hatun, continued to serve as a “buffer state” to the Mamluks state.
Reconstruction of Constantinople and Population Policy
In order to prevent the destruction of Constantinople, Mehmed II had sought the voluntary surrender by agreement (ḥul )an) , but a call to surrender to Emperor Constantine XI. had been unsuccessful. Meanwhile, his adviser Akşemseddin had urged him to take the city in battle. When Constantinople fell in 1453, the city, which had been captured by force (ʿanwatan) , was sacked contrary to Mehmed's original plan. The city's already weakened economy was destroyed and some of the population were enslaved, killed or driven out. In the Chronicle of the Aschikpaschazade it says:
« ایو طویملقلر دخی اولندی التون و کمش و جوهرلر و انواع قماشلر اورد بازاره کلوب دوکلدی صاتمغا بشلدلر و کافرنی اسیر اتدلر و محبوبه لرنی غازیلر بغرلرینه بصدلر »
«Eyü ṭoyumluḳlar daḫi olındı altun ve gümüş ve cevherler ve envāʿ-i ḳumāşlar āverd (?) Bāzāra gelüb döküldi ṣatmaġa başladılar ve kāfirini esīr etdiler ve brūzbelerini»
Mehmed only entered the city after the first usual looting, which he declared to be over after a day. His first imperial act was that he was in Hagia Sophia (ایاصوفیه/ Aya-Ṣofya ), the coronation church of the Byzantine Empire, prayed, made it the first mosque of Constantinople and established itself as the successor to the Eastern Roman emperors.
Already in 1455 arose on the Forum Tauri with the (later so called) Old Seraglio ( Sarāy-ı ʿAtīḳ /سراى عتيق) a new, imperial center of the Ottoman Empire. All other structural measures, to which Mehmed also obliged the dignitaries of his empire, were to strengthen the infrastructure and offer the opportunity to fill the largely depopulated Constantinople with people and new life. Above all, the wealthy, craftsmen and traders were in demand. Farmers were settled in the open countryside and in the surrounding villages. The settlement of population groups was not only voluntary, but also, to a large extent, forcibly (sürgün) . Large quarters (nāḥiye) belonging to them were created around newly built Friday mosques or churches rededicated as Friday mosques, and around larger churches that have remained Christian . The model for this was the Nā Küiye around the Külliye of the Islamized Aya-Ṣofya and around Mehmed's large complex of the Fatih Mosque . These large districts contain smaller districts ( mahalle ) , in the middle usually a smaller mosque ( Mescid ) or rarely stood a church or synagogue and were felt by residents as a cohesive, self-contained neighborhoods.
The Greeks, Jews and Armenians who remained behind during the conquest and the newly settled people contributed significantly to the regeneration of the economy in Constantinople, but the Turkish population was also resettled to Constantinople, mostly against their protests. Mehmed II granted special privileges to the Jews. He exempted them from a variety of taxes. He valued her as ambassadors and spies in the Latin world and trusted the advice of his Jewish personal physician Iacopo Gaeta in financial matters too.
In 1477 there were 9,486 Muslim, 3,743 Greek Orthodox, 1,647 Jewish, 434 Armenian and 332 European households (ḫāne) in Istanbul and Galata as well as 651 others and 31 Roma, which corresponds to a total of 16,324 households and thus an approximate population of 100,000. Soldiers, madrasah students and slaves were not included.
Administration of the Empire and Legislation
In addition to his military conquests, Mehmed II introduced a centralized administration of the empire that was effective compared to the previous system. In doing so, he largely disempowered the ancestral aristocratic families, who he either turned into administrators of fiefs ( tīmār ) who were not entitled to inheritance, i.e. deprived them of their property, or replaced them entirely with members of his state and military administration, which largely consisted of renegades and slaves (ḳul) . Religious foundations ( evḳāf ) were also withdrawn and converted into military loans .
Written laws consolidated the secular legal system that resulted from this. Above all, the collection of laws or regulations (ḳānūn-nāme) about the court and state organization, probably composed between 1477 and 1481 in three chapters , in which, among other things, the fratricide of the Ottoman sultans was permitted, underpinned Mehmed's autocratic principle. The sultan's person and his decisions became the sole basis of authority and legitimation in state and society. Further laws of Mehmed II, which dealt with the rights and above all with the duties of the subordinates ( reʿāyā ) who did not belong to the warrior caste ( ʿaskerī ) , were included in the "Sultanic collection of laws according to Ottoman tradition" (قانوننامه سلطانی بر موجب عرف عثمانی/ Ḳānūnnāme-i Sulṭānī over mūceb-i ʿörf-i ʿos̲mānī ), which was compiled under Bayezid II. However, the ordinances contained therein did not provide the Reʿāyā with any real legal certainty. Their background was more about power politics. A large part of it deals with the gold, silver and copper necessary for the minting of coins, with the state mints, with the production and marketing of salt, with the production of agricultural goods as well as with port regulations and customs duties. The individual and his rights played no role in it.
Under the leadership of the astronomer, mathematician and theologian Ali al-Qushdschī, Mehmed II also regulated the religious teaching and instruction as well as the hierarchy of the ʿUlamā 'of his empire. As head of state he emphatically represented the Sunni direction of Islam, which he consistently adhered to and which he adhered to externally. But he personally had a lot of understanding for divergent lines of thought, especially those of the Shiite direction.
The non-Islamic population known as Ẕimmī received extensive, separate, often written rights, freedoms and conditions from Mehmed II. They were divided into self-governing religious communities, later referred to as Millet , which could exercise their own rights as long as no Muslims were affected. Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Christians and Jews were recognized as such communities, regardless of ethnic origin. They were not allowed to carry weapons, so they did not have to do military service, but were obliged to pay high taxes (cf. Jizya ) . This non-Muslim population worked, for example, in manual trades, in trade and in the financial sector and thus took on tasks that the ʿAskerī , who were in the military and administrative service, and the Islamic peasant population did not perform .
In the cities, especially in Constantinople, Mehmed II regulated and improved the economic conditions for craftsmen and traders. Open and covered bazaars, weighing stations with monitored scales and market rules strengthened the economy and thus the state income. With the Altun , Mehmed II also created the first secular gold coin in the Islamic world in 1477/78. It no longer bore any religious formulas, only the title and name of the sultan and the date and name of the usṭanṭīniyye mint . The Altun quickly developed into a trading coin that was widely used, especially in the eastern Mediterranean. There he replaced the original Venetian ducat ( firengī filorī or efrenciyye ), which was also minted by the Ottomans .
Mehmed II. Encroachments on the rights of landowners were significant. For example, all the land on which rice was grown was nationalized, also in order to be able to guarantee and control rice production as a general food source. All these autocratic interventions were legitimized with the obligation of the sultan to follow the word of God and to stand up for the well-being of the subjects.
The re-minting of devalued silver coins in the years 1444, 1451, 1460/61, 1470/71, 1475/76 and 1481 as well as the prohibition of old coins - and thus an indirect taxation of money capital - are shown in addition to some regulations affecting the economy in the Law collection Ḳānūnnāme-i Sulṭānī about mūceb-i ʿörf-i ʿos̲mānī, however, that Mehmed II was not really concerned with welfare state measures, but with profit for the state budget. The general economic upswing that went with it could only be sustained by constantly conquering new areas.
“It is amazing how quickly the unshakable energy of Muhammad II allowed the new life to flourish, how the arts and sciences celebrated their renaissance. The destroyer soon came up with a second nature: that of a creator. "
Under Mehmed II's rule, the Ottoman culture experienced an upswing thanks to the newly won urbanity . More than 300 mosques , 57 madrasas (Islamic universities) and 59 baths were built under his aegis. The New Seraglio ( Sarāy-ı Cedīd /سراى جديد, today's Topkapı Palace ) and the complex of the New Mosque ( Cāmiʿ-i Cedīd / Cāmiʿ-i Cedīd /جامع جديد, today Fatih Mosque ) in İstanbul are considered to be the most important buildings under the reign of Mehmed II. Both complexes exemplify Mehmed's turn to western, especially Italian styles of art and architecture, which was combined with a reception of the ancient roots of the Byzantine Empire . This is also expressed, for example, in Mehmed's study of ancient authors. The result can be described as the Ottoman Renaissance . Mehmed's personal preference for the culture of the territories he had conquered as well as of the Latin West met with his vision of a global culture of the empire ruled and regulated autocratically by him, in which Roman-Byzantine, Persian-Islamic and Turkic-Mongolian traditions were to combine .
In public, showed the example in architecture and furnishings of the Fatih complex whose strictly symmetrical entire system to Italian complex as that of the Ospedale Maggiore in Milan remembers, while the design of the Holy Mosque with its central dome of the Byzantine Hagia Sophia was determined and art in architecture, for example with the muqarnas, has an old Turkish character. The variety of styles favored by Mehmed programmatically experienced more of a private purpose in three pavilions of the "New Seraglio" which were inaccessible to the public at the time and which were held in the Greek, Turkish and Persian-Karamanid style.
Fine arts and crafts
A bronze medal with his portrait from around 1460, which was probably made by Pietro da Milano and the inscription “MAGNVS PRINCEPS ET MAGNVS AMIRAS SULTANVS DNS MEHOMET, documents that Mehmed II used the fine arts and handicrafts to depict his ruler " wearing.
After the peace treaty of 1479, Mehmed II asked the Signoria of the Republic of Venice for a capable portraitist. Gentile Bellini was then sent to Istanbul. In the last two years of his life, he served the art-loving sultan as a kind of court painter and, regardless of the Muslim ban on images, decorated his private rooms with representational images (according to Gian-Maria Angiolello with "diversi belli quadri, et massime cose di lussuria [...]", the Bayezid) II. After Mehmed II's death in the bazaar). He designed medals and probably created the well-known portrait of Mehmed II in 1480. The portrait of the ruler of the Sultan is in an antique, typically Venetian frame and has three crowns above it - one for each of the empires conquered by Mehmed, namely Greece (the Byzantine Empire and Rumelia ), Trebizond (the Empire of Trebizond ) and Asia (including the empires of the Aq Qoyunlu and the Karamanids ), as revealed by inscribed gold and bronze medals with the same motif. However, the attribution of the copy, which hangs today in the Victoria and Albert Museum on loan from the National Gallery in London, has not been confirmed.
Mehmed II's attempt to orientate himself on Italian art left its mark, temporarily also in miniature painting of his time. His court painter Sinan Bey and his pupil Şiblizâde Ahmed developed a new type of portrait art influenced by Italian painters.
Several times Mehmed asked Italian princes and city governments not only painters but also sculptors, engravers, bronze medalists or bronze casters and crystal glass cutters. Only a few artists who subsequently came to Mehmed's court are known by name. Besides Gentile Bellini, who also designed bronze medals, Costanzo da Ferrara and Bartolommeo Bellano are attested.
Science and scientific literature
Mehmed II was a great promoter of literature and science . He set up private libraries first in Edirne and then also in Constantinople. He also founded and promoted public libraries for which he had books produced. It is uncertain which of the traditional books registered under Bayezid II came from Mehmed. Mehmed's successors had some of the books and writings Mehmed owned that were considered free-thinking, removed. A contemporary list of books from Mehmed's library that could provide information about this is known, but so far unpublished.
Byzantine philosophical and theological works had Mehmed translated into Arabic, which he, like Turkish and Persian, was fluent in. It is unlikely, however, that he had more than basic knowledge of Greek, “Slavic”, Hebrew and Latin. Together with experts brought to the court, he was particularly happy to discuss questions of philosophy, theology, history, geography and cartography as well as astronomy and astrology. He was introduced to the history and doctrine of Christianity by Gennadios , whom he had installed as patriarch in Constantinople. His interest in this can also be seen in the fact that he had the Christian creed translated into Turkish. He wanted to learn about the basic beliefs of the Orthodox Church, which he, like other Ottoman sultans, promoted.
The natural sciences took a significant boom in 1472 with the arrival of the astronomer Ali al-Qushdschī from Tabriz. With his skills and his library he brought profound scientific knowledge from the Timurid tradition to Constantinople, where he held a professorship at the Aya-Ṣofya madrasah for a short time until his death in 1474 . He dedicated two of his important writings to Mehmed II, namely Muḥammadiyya , a mathematical work, and al-Fatḥiyya ( Book of Conquest), a study of astronomy. He also left theological, grammatical and legal writings behind.
In addition to astronomy, Mehmed also valued astrology, which was considered a science in his time. Before all important decisions and undertakings, he sought advice from his court astrologers. There are many indications that he was superstitious. This is also indicated by his enthusiasm for Christian relics, of which he put on a large collection. These devotional objects became known because, after Mehmed II's death, Bayezid II had lists made of them in order to offer the relics to Christian rulers. Bayezid hoped for political advantages from this.
Mehmed II's interest in military science went entirely in a practical direction. He paid particular attention to the development and strategic use of large-caliber cannons. His preoccupation with it was well known in Europe. For example, Sigismondo Malatesta sent him copies of Roberto Valturio's De re Militari in 1461 and 1462 , but they did not reach him. However, there is evidence of a Latin translation of the work from 1472 in the Saray library. Mehmed apparently also owned Paolo Santini da Duccio's Tractatus de re militari et machinis bellicis . In the 1470s he had the cannon foundry Ṭopḫāne-ʾi ʿĀmire set up.
The surviving works in Mehmed's library show that medical science at his court combined standard works in terms of anatomy, therapy, hygiene, pharmacology and botany, which are largely based on Avicenna's Qānūn . An example of more recent works is Sabuncuoğlu Şerefeddins Cerrāḥiyye-ʾi il beschäftigtāniyye , which deals with the therapy of broken bones and sprains, among other things.
Like many Ottoman sultans, Mehmed II also wrote poetry, almost exclusively in the Turkish language. His poet name wasعونی/ ʿAvnī . His Dīwān , a collection of over 80 poems, contains both purely poetic (first example) and time-related, political verses (second example) that have a propagandistic character.
غره اولمه دلبرا حسن و جماله قل وفا
باقی قلمز کمسیه نقش و نکار الدن کیدر
Ġırre olma dilberā ḥüsn ü cemāle ḳıl vefā
Bāḳī ḳalmaz kimseye naḳş u nigār elden gider
Oh beautiful, don't be glad if your charms are magic,
paintings don't stay, the colors go away.
بزمله سلطنت لافن ایدرمش اول قرامانی
خدا فرصت ویریرسه کر قرا ییره قرام آنی
Bizimle salṭanat lāfın ėdermiş ol Ḳaramānī
Ḫudā furṣat vėrirse ger ḳara yėre ḳaram ānı
It measured the rule of the Karaman,
If the opportunity arises, he is a dead man.
In his immediate environment, Mehmed II promoted Persian-language poetry. The historians Latîfî and Kınalızâde Hasan Çelebi reported that Mehmed had given thirty Ottoman poets monthly pardons . He held the poet Ahmed Pascha (1426–1497) in high esteem , who rose to the rank of army judge and served as a private tutor to Mehmed. Zeyneb Hatun (died around 1475), next to Mihri Hatun (died around 1505) the most important Ottoman poet of the 15th century, Mehmed dedicated her divan , which contains Persian and Turkish poems. And foreign poets who he estimated, such as the on the Deccan acting Hoca i Cihan (Abu'l-Fadl Maḥmūd ibn Shaykh Muhammad) from Gilan and the most famous Eastern poet of those days, Jami from Herat , he made partially over several years high donations, probably to persuade them to come to his court.
In connection with poetry, Mehmed II also dealt with settings. Since the Persian music preferred at court did not use its own notation, he had Greek singers notate Persian songs by ear using Byzantine neumes .
For military and representative tasks, the mehterān were formed as a musical band in Constantinople and later also outside of it . In the vicinity of the Old Seraglio, a complex of buildings, initially called Nevbetḫāne , later also Mehterḫāne , was built, in which the Mehter musicians were housed. The place name Mehterḫāne then became the name of the Mehterḫāne music band itself. At around the same time, guilds (eṣnāf) of Mehter musicians were established, which, in addition to the courtly-military functions, mainly took on civilian functions.
Mehmed II, who in the last years of his life suffered from gout , a large body and edema in his legs, died on May 3, 1481 in the so-called "Königswiese" ( Tekfūr Çayırı , also Hünkār Çayırı ) near Gebze when he was his army collected for a campaign. Presumably the Sultan wanted to move with his army to Rhodes or Syria , which at that time was part of the Mamluks Empire, which was at war with the Ottomans . Suspicions of poisoning on behalf of the Venetians or of Bayezid , who fell out of favor due to the consumption of opium, are based on a lyrical insert in the Chronicle of the Aschikpaschazade , but are not covered by other sources.
To avoid turmoil, Mehmed's death was kept a secret and his body was transferred to Istanbul on the pretext that the ruler had to go to the hammam. After a few days, the Baltacılar Kethüdası (commander of the palace guard) and an embalming man removed the deceased's innards due to the odor. As early as May 4, 1481, İshak Pasha , the governor (muḥāfıẓ) of Istanbul and supporter of Prince Bayezid, had Korkud , the eldest son of Bayezid, who was present in Istanbul, on the throne as imperial administrator . When the Janissaries learned of Mehmed's death at Ishak Pasha's behest, they invaded the city, killed the Grand Vizier Karamâni Mehmed Pasha , who was a supporter of Cem, and carried his impaled head through Istanbul for pillage. Ultimately, İshak Pasha succeeded in appeasing the soldiers through payments until the arrival of Bayezids on May 21, 1481. Mehmed II was buried in the complex of the Fatih Mosque that he had built .
After his death there was a dispute for the throne between the sons Bayezid and Cem . In order to avoid such conflicts that endanger the existence of the empire, a tradition of the Ottoman ruling dynasty arose on the basis of Mehmed's “State Organization Law”, which Selim I first consistently applied: the heir who could usurp power had that Right to have all other descendants of the founder of the empire Osman killed in a purely male line in order to preserve the integrity of the empire (نظام عالم ایچون/ niẓām-ı ʿālem içün / 'to maintain the world order').
The personality of Mehmed II is presented very differently and often in contradiction in the available sources. Depending on the partisanship and direction, he is portrayed in all degrees from the arbitrarily acting libertine, drunkard and pederastic lustful to the level-headed, compassionate, educated ruler open to the arts and sciences.
That Mehmed II, for example, after the fall of Constantinople, Luke Notaras , the Megadux and First Minister of Emperor Constantine XI. Most contemporary historians unanimously report that he was pardoned and then executed with his sons. The circumstances and reasons that led to it, on the other hand, are presented differently:
- Dukas reports on the pardon and explains that Mehmed, drunk, asked for the notary's beautiful, younger son at a feast. The father rejected this immoral plan several times. Thereupon Mehmed ordered the execution of the father and the sons. The executioner showed the heads to the "bloodthirsty animal" Mehmed at the feast.
- Laonikos Chalkokondyles tells the story without reference to pederastic cravings and without revelations. He justified the subsequent execution of other Greek notables by saying that a Greek, whose daughter was loved by Mehmed, had set this in motion.
- Abraham of Ankyra , an Armenian eyewitness, wrote in an elegy about the capture of Constantinople: “The great Greek military leader / whose name was Kir Luka / they found, seized him / and dragged him before the evil sultan. / And he treated him very honorably / until he had coaxed his secret [where his treasure with many precious things was]; / but then he had his two sons and himself beheaded with the sword ”.
- In the case of Kritobulos von Imbros , Mehmed II's pity is the reason for Notaras' pardon. Mehmed intended to appoint Notaras as governor of the city. This was prevented by influential people at court who viewed notaries and other Byzantine notables as a security risk. As a result, Notaras and his sons, as well as the other notables, were executed. A short time later, the sultan saw through the informers as slanderers and had them executed.
- Tursun Bey , who witnessed the conquest of Constantinople and in his story of the father of the conquest (تاريخ ابو الفتح/ Tārīḫ-i Ebū ʾl-Fetḥ ), contented himself with pointing out that Mehmed II had held a council meeting after returning to his headquarters and that prominent Byzantines had been brought before him. He ordered the execution of some and spared others for practical reasons. Notaras is not mentioned by name.
The Byzantine civil servant and historian Georgios Sphrantzes is rather reserved , despite his personal negative experiences with Mehmed II - his son was executed and his daughter was brought to the ruler's harem . The following characterization of Makarios Melissenos (between 1573 and 1575) is based on his diary-like notes called Chronicon minus :
“As a young man, Mehemmed was extremely energetic, in military and civil matters he showed the wisdom of an old man. He had a particular fondness for able people and for scholars. He was by no means a stranger himself in the sciences, he mastered astronomy very well from his own knowledge and was particularly fond of it. He read the story of Alexander the Great, the Emperor Augustus, Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great, passionately looking at how he could surpass them all and expand the boundaries of his empire to the utmost. And he succeeded. "
“Sultan Mehmed had a happy reign after his father Murad. But he was very cunning and betrayed whoever he could, even with the truce. He didn't care much for his faith either, but he was a famous warrior who was lucky, but he was not loyal to anyone. If someone reprimanded him for that, he burst out like a madman. "
The different perspectives on Mehmed II in the Christian Occident are exemplified in the attitude of Pope Pius II. On the one hand, he portrayed Mehmed as the greatest danger to Christianity and propagated a crusade against the Ottoman Empire during his entire pontificate. In his appeals, he described Mehmed as a beast and as the one who ordered the massacre during the conquest of Constantinople, participated in it and washed his hands in Christian blood. On the other hand, the same Pope Mehmed wrote a letter in 1461 which, after his death, was widely circulated in copies and in print. In it he assured the sultan that he would rule the world if he was baptized.
“A little thing can make you the greatest and most famous of all people living today. […] There are a few drops of water with which you will be baptized, confess to the sacraments of Christians and believe in the gospel. If you do this, there will be no prince on earth who surpasses you in fame and is able to match you in power. We will call you ruler of the Greeks and the Orient, and what you have just occupied by force and ruled wrongly, you will rightly own. The Christians will all venerate you and make you judge over their disputes. [...] Oh, how great would the excess of peace be, how great the jubilation of the Christian people, how great the exultation would be everywhere on earth [...] and renewed what the poets call the Golden Age. "
However, there is no evidence that Pius II ever sent this letter to Mehmed and that Mehmed received or perceived it.
Ottoman and Byzantine historiography, reports from allies and opponents of the Sultan, diplomatic documents and pictorial portraits by Italian and Ottoman draftsmen, painters and medalists create the impression that Mehmed's personality is easy to grasp. A description of the private person of Mehmed II is still largely based on assumptions. Franz Babinger , a profound connoisseur of Mehmed and the sources describing him, suspected that all of Mehmed's thoughts, efforts and work were based on his idea, which he had already as a child and youth, to become an Islamic ruler of the world. He pursued this goal rigorously, and he subordinated everything personal to it. That also determined his cold feeling, his documented and rumored cruelty and his thirst for knowledge.
The Ottoman historians such as Tursun Bey and Mehmed people close to him avoided describing his person separately from his historical tasks and deeds. It was not customary to make public the customs of the Sultan or his way of life, which took place behind the walls of the seraglio and the prescribed silence. Mehmed's artistic inclinations are well documented, as Mehmed left drawings and poems that speak for themselves. It should be noted that Mehmed's poet name ʿAvnī denotes a literary figure who is by no means a self-portrait.
At best, Mehmed had personal ties to his mother and probably also to his stepmother Despina Hatun , the childless Serbian wife of his father Murad II, whom he generously looked after as a widow. In a Ferman from 1459 he dubbed her “first among the Christian noblewomen” and “my mother”. The additional designation with the name Despina Hatun documents her belonging to the Mehmed II family. A Serbian source emphasizes that "Tsar Mehmed loved and honored her like his own mother". He trusted her as a consultant and diplomatic mediator.
One of the traits of his personality is his free-spirited attitude towards different religions, which is of course also determined by statesmanship. Gian-Maria Angiolello, who was in his service, claimed that Mehmed's son Bayezid said that Mehmed "did not believe in the prophet Mohammed".
It is noticeable that Mehmed withdrew more and more from the public during his long reign, especially in the last years of his life. The court ceremony he introduced erected high barriers between him and his subjects. While as a young, sensual sultan who was fond of women and men, he liked to dine in larger groups, he later did not allow anyone to participate in his table. He even withdrew from the Dīwān sessions without, however, neglecting their control. For his final military venture, he rallied the troops without revealing his goal to anyone. For him it was the last lonely action before his death in the field camp near Gebze .
Mehmed II and his time in literature, music and the arts
Mehmed II in Western and Turkish Literature
- In Marcel Proust's first volume of In Search of Lost Time , the main character Swann reflects on the subject of killing for love:
“Then Swann felt in his heart related to that Muhammad II, whose portrait of Bellini was so dear to him; This Sultan, when he realized that he loved one of his women to the point of madness, stabbed her unceremoniously in order - as his Venetian biographer quite naively reports - to regain the freedom of his mind. "
- Stefan Zweig's novella The Conquest of Byzantium from the great moments of mankind covers the events from the siege of Constantinople to its sacking. Zweig uses asymmetrical opposing poles such as Orient - Occident, Muslim - Christian, fanatical - religious, raw - civilized. The Muslims are consistently judged negatively by Zweig. Mehmed II (in Zweig Mahomet ) is also described as a man of great contrasts, as “pious and cruel, passionate and insidious, a spirit-loving man who reads his Caesar and the biographies of the Romans in Latin, and at the same time as a barbarian who spills blood like water ”. Even the positive poles of Mahomet's character are interpreted negatively. In contrast, the Byzantines are idealized. This is exemplified by the assessment of the rulers: Mahomet can promise his comrades-in- arms booty, his opponent Constantine, on the other hand , his comrades-in- arms "honor [...] which they acquire for Christianity and the entire occidental world if they fend off this last decisive onslaught, and..." the danger when they succumb to the burners of murder: Mahomet and Konstantin, they both know: this day decides on centuries of history ”.
- In Martha Meuffel's novel Die Liebe, it is said from 1961, the Proust quote about Mehmed II was woven into a study of time that accounts for love fantasy and reality.
In modern Turkish literature , Mehmed II appears as one of the main characters in more than 30 historical novels. His portrayal has changed several times: from a rather ambivalent assessment at the beginning of the 20th century to a phase of glorification as an ideal statesman and national hero from the 1950s to 1990s to much more complex representations in works of the last decades.
- Nizamettin Nazif Tepedelenlioğlu (1901–1970): Kara Davud /قارا داوود. A three-volume novel written in early Republican times. The publication (1928–1930) aroused opposition because of the negative portrait of Mehmed II contained therein, which is demonized by the depiction of his despotism, insolence, tyranny and arrogance as well as sexual obsessions. In contrast, the second protagonist of the novel, the eponymous Kara Davud, is idealized and built up as a model for a new, republican, Turkish identity. Tepedelenlioğlu's simple language and the easy-to-follow narrative threads support his enlightened political concern.
- İskender Fahrettin Sertelli (1885–1945): İstanbulu Nasıl Aldık? (“How did we conquer Istanbul?”). The historical novel was published in 1930 in direct opposition to Tepedelenlioğlu's negative view of Mehmed II. In Sertelli's portrayal, the militarily and politically successful sultan stands as a symbol of Turkish heroism and an archetype of modern values that deal with determination, patriotism, charisma, intellectuality and modesty , Rewrite fairness and compassion. With Sertelli, the conqueror Mehmed brings luck, well-being and justice to the morally corrupt Byzantium. His Turkishness, which Sertelli equates with Ottomanism, is propagated as a model for the political elite at the time the novel was written. A continuation of the past in this sense guarantees a modern Turkish nation in the present.
- Enver Behnan Şapolyo (1900–1972): Fatih İstanbul Kapılarında ("The Conqueror at the Gates of Istanbul"). The novel, published in 1953, tells the life of Mehmed II from birth to the conquest of Istanbul in the form of an educational novel. The reader learns exhaustively about Mehmed's military and spiritual training, which were the basis of Mehmed's greatness as sultan and conqueror of the Byzantine Empire. It describes the influence of his father and his teachers, his anchoring in the customs of the Turkic peoples and his religious upbringing, which gave him the mission to conquer Istanbul. All of this was seen in Turkey around 1953 as exemplary for the education of the republican youth and thus followed Sertelli's appeal to the intellectual and political elite of his time.
- Nedim Gürsel chose the Proust quote in Boğazkesen: Fatih'in romanı from 1995 ( Eng . The Conqueror ) as the motto. Mehmed II as a saint in Turkey in religious circles is demythologized in this novel. Gürsel draws an ambivalent portrait of the sultan, who is thrown back and forth between violence and the search for meaning.
Mehmed II in the opera
- With Maometto II (German: Mohammed the Second ) Gioachino Rossini created an opera in two acts of great dramatic power under the double motto "Christians fight against Muslims - love meets duty". The action takes place against the background of the conquest of the city of Negroponte (today's Chalkida ) on the island of Evia, held by the Venetians, by Mehmed II. In the city he has captured, the Ottoman ruler meets a former lover whose love he wants to regain but refused him out of patriotism and kills himself. Rossini's opera follows the tradition of the Turkish operas popular in the 18th century . Especially in the choirs of the Turkish soldiers, the resulting musical clichés predominate. In contrast, the musical identification of Maometto largely dispenses with this. In the libretto he is portrayed as cruel, but also as willing to compromise and sensitively loving and bears the general traits of an absolute ruler and tragic opera hero.
Mehmed II in Turkish film and television
Mehmed II and the martial founding myths associated with him are brought closer to the Turkish public through audiovisual media, more than through literature. This mainly includes two films, a subsequent television series and staging in Turkish museums, for example through a historical panorama.
- İstanbul'un Fethi from 1951 was the first Turkish film to be devoted to the time of Mehmed II and his conquest of Istanbul. Until then, the ideological interest in Kemalist Turkey tended to focus on pre-Islamic founding myths. With this film, Mehmed II was stylized as the founder of a nationalist Turkey.
- Fetih 1453 (Eng. The Conqueror ) from 2012 also shows the integration and expansion of Turkish nationalism in a religious dimension. Mehmed II is portrayed as the finisher of a prophecy of Muhammad, according to which someone would come who would conquer Istanbul and found an Islamic world empire. Some historical facts like the sacking of Istanbul by the Ottoman armed forces are hidden. Mehmed II is portrayed as a noble warlord who, at the end of his efforts, shows mercy. The historical facts are even falsified in that Mehmed II gives a Christian burial in the film to his opponent Constantine XI, who died in battle and whose death is in reality unexplained and whose body has never been found. The film is entirely on the currently prevailing political line of an Ottoman renaissance. The obvious parallel between the historical position of Sultan Mehmed II and the current Islamic position of power of the Turkish president appears to be a government-sponsored goal of the film, which was also broadcast as a series by the state-controlled TV station TRT. The spread-like eroticcontent, not necessarily in line with the ruling AKP party , encouraged general interest in the film and its implementation as a television series.
The preparation of Ottoman history in Turkish museums has been subsidized by the state since the AKP came to power. Here, too, as in the film and in general in public discourse, a shift from Kemalist national founding myths to an Islamic-conservative representation of the history and role of Mehmed II can be seen.
- A typical example of this is the Istanbul History Museum Panorama 1453 , which was opened in 2009 and was personally initiated by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan . After visiting the panorama of the Battle of Waterloo , he found that Istanbul should have such a battle panorama too. The theme of the Istanbul Panorama, with its museum-based founding myth, marks the provisional end point of a turning point in the Turkish politics of remembrance. Mehmed II's tolerance is particularly emphasized. It shows how he gives the patriarch Gennadios Scholarios a patent on religious freedom, how he explains to the Christians who have gathered in fear of the Hagia Sophia that they should not be afraid and how he explains to the inhabitants of Galata all in one Contract free exercise of their religion and their traditions promises. This view of Mehmed II with its theming of religious freedom and the multiculturalism of the Ottoman Empire corresponds to a process initiated by the ruling AKP party at the beginning of the 2000s, which is designated by the term Açılım (“opening”).
Mehmed II. Fatih as namesake
- Fatih , borough of Istanbul
- More than 60 Fatih mosques in Europe (over 50 in Germany), including those built during Mehmed II's lifetime:
- Sultan Mehmed Fatih Mosque in the fortress of Kruja , Albania
- Al-Fatih Mosque (Bajrakli Mosque), a Mehmed II foundation in Peja , Kosovo
- Sultan Mehmed al-Fatih Mosque in Pristina , Kosovo
- Sultan Mehmet Fatih Mosque (originally Cāmiʿ-i Cedīd /جامع جديد / 'New Mosque', Fatih Mosque for short) in Istanbul
- Educational institutions:
- Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Üniversitesi , University founded in 2010 on the basis of a foundation of Mehmed II from 1470
- Özel Sultan Fatih Eğitim Kurumları , private educational institutions in Istanbul, consisting of preschool, elementary school, middle school and high school (Anadolu Lisesi)
- Baths (selection):
- Public facilities:
Franz Babinger's still valid standard work on Mehmed II had to do without any comments or references in the German edition. A planned supplementary volume with sources and references has not been published. Although Babinger was able to revise a few things in a second, Italian version shortly before his death and contribute a new foreword, it was only the English edition by Ralph Manheim and William C. Hickman that partially compensated for the shortcomings of the German edition.
- Franz Babinger : Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. World striker at a turning point. Bruckmann Verlag, Munich 1953.
- Franz Babinger: Maometto il Conquistatore e il suo tempo. 2nd, revised edition, Torino 1967. (With a new foreword by Franz Babinger)
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Translated from the German by Ralph Manheim, edited with bibliographical references and index by William C. Hickman. Princeton University Press 1992, ISBN 978-0-691-01078-6 .
- John Freely : The Grand Turk. Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople, Master of an Empire and Lord of Two Seas . New York 2009, ISBN 978-1-59020-248-7 .
- Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Böhlau Verlag, Cologne 2009, ISBN 978-3-412-20255-2 .
- Halim Kara: The literary portrayal of Mehmed II in Turkish historical fiction . In: New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 36 (2007), pp. 71-95 (English).
- Ernst Werner : Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror and the turning point in the 15th century. Berlin 1982.
Sources (original language or translation into German or English)
- Franz Babinger: The records of the Genoese Iacopo de Promontorio de Campis about the Ottoman state around 1475. In: Meeting reports of the Bavarian. Akad. D. Wiss., Phil.-Hist. Kl., Born in 1956, issue 8, Munich 1957.
- Halil İnalcık and Rhoads Murphey (introduction, summary translation, edition as facsimile): The history of Mehmed the Conqueror by Tursun Beg. Minneapolis / Chicago 1978.
- Richard Franz Kreutel : (editor and translator): Life and deeds of the Turkish emperors. The anonymous vulgar Greek chronicle Codex Barbarianus Graecus 111 (Anonymus Zoras). Graz et altera 1971.
- Richard Franz Kreutel: (editor and translator): From the shepherd's tent to the high gate. Early period and rise of the Ottoman Empire according to the chronicle "Memories and times of the House of ʿOsman" by the dervish Ahmed, called ʿAşık-Paşa-Son. Graz / Vienna / Cologne 1959, Chapter 117 ff.
- Renate Lachmann (introduction, translation): Memoirs of a Janissary or Turkish Chronicle. In: Günther Stökl (Ed.): Slavic historians. Volume VIII, Styria Verlag, Graz / Vienna / Cologne 1975, ISBN 3-222-10552-9 .
- Harry J. Magoulias (editor and translator): Decline and fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks by Doukas; an annotated translation of “Historia Turco-Byzantina” . Detroit 1975.
- Diether Roderich Reinsch (introduction, translation): Mehmet II conquers Constantinople - the first years of reign of Sultan Mehmet Fatih, the conqueror of Constantinople (1453); the historical work of Critobulus of Imbros. ISBN 3-222-10296-1 .
- George Sphrantzes, Marios Philippides (transl.): The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: a chronicle. [= Chronicon minus ]. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst 1980.
- Klaus Wolf, Jonas Göhler (ed.): Pope Pius II to Sultan Mehmet II: the translation of the 'Epistola ad Mahumetem' by Michael Christian. De Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2016, ISBN 978-3-11-035768-4 .
- Emanuel Eckardt: Crescent moon over the Golden Horn . In: Die Zeit , No. 23/2003; to Mehmed II and the conquest of Constantinople
- Literature by and about Mehmed II in the catalog of the German National Library
- Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Turkey: Fatih Sultan Mehmet ( Memento from May 17, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
- Serpil Bağçı: Alexander as Mehmed II: A Visual Documentation Video of a lecture in English (Ed .: Turkish Cultural Foundation, March 22, 2013)
- Nurhan Atasoy, Filiz Çağman: Turkish Miniature Painting . Istanbul 1974, p. 18.
- Begüm Özden Fırat: Encounters with the Ottoman miniature: contemporary readings of an imperial art. Tauris, 2015, London et al., Pp. 148 f.
- Halil İnalcik: Meḥemmed II. In: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, CE Bosworth, E. van Donzel, WP Heinrichs (ed.): Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill, 2009. Brill Online, accessed January 29, 2011.
- Halil İnalcık: Mehmed II. In: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Volume 28, TDV Yayını, Ankara 2003, pp. 395-407.
- On the disputed date of birth see Franz Babinger: Meḥmed's II., Des Eroberers, Birthday. In: Oriens. Volume 2, No. 1, October 31, 1949, pp. 1-5.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 10 f.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 21.
- John Freely: The Grand Turk . New York 2009, p. 9.
- On Hadice Hatun see M. Çağatay Uluçay: Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları. Fifth edition. Ötüken, Istanbul 2011, ISBN 978-975-437-840-5 , p. 31 f.
- Cf. ʿĀşıḳ-Paşa-zāde: Tevārīḫ-i Āl-i ʿOs̲mān (ʿĀşıḳ-Paşa-zāde Tārīḫi). Maṭbaʿa-ʾi ʿĀmire, Istanbul 1332 (1914), p. 140 (text edition by ʿAlī Beğ).
- Bostān-zāde Yaḥyā Efendi: Tuḥfet ül-Aḥbāb. Volume 1, Teraḳḳī Maṭbaʿası, Istanbul 1287 (1870/71), p. 44.
- Ḫoca Saʿd ed-Dīn Efendi: Tāc üt-Tevārīḫ. Volume 1, Ṭabʿḫāne-i ʿĀmire, Istanbul 1279 (1862/63), p. 407.
- Ṣolaḳ-zāde Meḥmed Hemdemī: Tārīḫ-i Ṣolaḳ-zāde. Maḥmūd Bey Maṭbaʿası, Istanbul 1297 (1879/80), p. 187.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 466.
- John Freely: The Grand Turk. New York 2009, p. 18 f.
- John Freely: The Grand Turk. New York 2009, p. 67.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed's II. Marriage with Sitt-Chatun (1449). In: Islam. Volume 29, 1950, pp. 217-235.
- Franz Babinger: "Bajezid Osman" (Calixtus Ottomanus), a forerunner and antagonist of Dschem Sultan. In: Henri Gregoire (ed.): La Nouvelle Clio. Revue mensuelle de la découverte historique. 3rd year, No. 9-10, October-December 1951, pp. 349-388.
- Suicide according to İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı: Osmanlı Tarihi. Tenth edition. Volume 1, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara 2011, p. 489.
- Execution after Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 73 f.
- Mehmet Akman: Osmanlı Devletinde Kardeş Katli. Eren Yayıncılık, Istanbul 1997, ISBN 975-7622-65-6 , p. 67 ff.
- Topkapi Saray Museum, Istanbul (H. 2324).
- Julian Raby: A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a patron of the arts. In. The Oxford Art Journal . 5/1 1982, p. 3 f.
- Serpil Baǧci: Old Images for New Texts and Contexts: Wandering Images in Islamic Book Painting . In: Muqarnas , Volume 21 (2004), Essays in Honor of JM Rogers . P. 23.
- Gábor Ágoston and Bruce Alan Masters: Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire . New York 2009, p. 266, ISBN 0-8160-6259-5 .
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 22 f.
- So Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 11.
- question after Halil İnalcık: Mehmed II. In: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Volume 28, TDV Yayını, Ankara 2003, p. 395.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 42 f.
- this Franz Babinger: From Amurath to Amurath. Prelude and aftermath of the Battle of Varna (1444). In: Oriens. Volume 3, No. 2, October 31, 1950, pp. 229-265 (247 f.).
- Franz Babinger: From Amurath to Amurath. Prelude and aftermath of the Battle of Varna (1444). In: Oriens. Volume 3, No. 2, October 31, 1950, pp. 229-265 (245 ff.).
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, pp. 34-36.
- Ibn Ḥanbal: Musnad. Volume 4, p. 335 (Būlāq edition).
- al-Ḥākim an-Nīsābūrī: al-Mustadrak ʿalā ṣ-ṣaḥīhain. Volume 4, Beirut 1990, p. 468.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 29.
- See Ġazavāt-ı Sulṭān Murād b. Meḥemmed Ḫān. Commented print by Halil İnalcık, Mevlûd Oğuz: Gazavât-ı Sultân Murâd b. Mehemmed Hân. İzladi ve Varna Savaşları (1443–1444) Üzerinde Anonim Gazavâtnâme. Second edition. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara 1989, f. 34b.
- John Freely: The Grand Turk . New York 2009, p. 14.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 31.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 42.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 73 f.
- So Abdulkadir Özcan: Buçuktepe Vak'ası. In: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Volume 6, TDV Yayını, Istanbul 1992, p. 343 f.
- the year 1444, however, the uprising occurred according to Franz Babinger: From Amurath to Amurath. Prelude and aftermath of the Battle of Varna (1444). In: Oriens. Volume 3, No. 2, October 31, 1950, pp. 229-265 (248 ff.).
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, pp. 56-59.
- So with reference to chalcocondyles also Halil İnalcık: Mehmed II. In: İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Volume 7, Millî Eğitim Basımevi, Istanbul 1957, pp. 506-535 (509).
- On the other hand, Johann Wilhelm Zinkeisen: History of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. Volume 1, Perthes, Hamburg 1840, p. 794.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 67.
- Rhoads Murphey: Ottoman Expansion, 1451–1556. I. Consolidation of Regional Power, 1451-1503. In: Geoff Mortimer (Ed.): Early Modern Military History, 1450-1815. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke / New York 2004, ISBN 1-4039-0696-3 , pp. 43-59.
- Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger: Mehmet Cannon Master Urban and his giant gun before the land walls of Constantinople Opel (1453). In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, pp. 211-225.
- Ṭursun Beğ: Tārīḫ-i Ebū ʾl-Fetḥ. Annotated reprint by Halil İnalcık, Rhoads Murphey: The History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Tursun Beg. Minneapolis and Chicago 1978, f. 52b.
- Ernst Werner: Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror and the turn of the epoch in the 15th century. Berlin 1982, p. 29.
- Fabian Fischer: The picture of Europe of the humanist and Pope Enea Silvio Piccolomini / Pius II . Munich 2007, p. 4 ( uni-muenchen.de , PDF; 1.8 MB).
- Fabian Fischer: The picture of Europe by the humanist and Pope Enea Silvio Piccolomini / Pius II . Munich 2007, p. 13.
- Fabian Fischer: The picture of Europe of the humanist and Pope Enea Silvio Piccolomini / Pius II . Munich 2007, p. 30ff.
- Géza Fehér: Turkish miniatures . Leipzig and Weimar 1978, explanations for panel VI.
- Wolfgang Gruber: Adriatic habitat between 1355 and 1456. Investigation of the geographical, social, economic and historical circumstances of the Adriatic region in the late Middle Ages . Diploma thesis to obtain the master’s degree in philosophy from the field of history submitted to the University of Vienna, p. 170; univie.ac.at (PDF).
- From the Noon Bells to the Lads of Pest. 1456, 1956. 555 years, 55 years . Zrinyi Media, 2011, pp. 11-36 ( Memento from December 17, 2011 in the Internet Archive ; 6.1 MB).
- Klaus-Peter Matschke: The cross and the half moon. The history of the Turkish wars . Scientific Book Society, p. 154 ff.
- Margret Spohn Everything has been tricked. 500 years (pre) judgments of the Germans against the Turks . ( Memento from February 1, 2012 in the Internet Archive ; PDF) University of Oldenburg, Studies on Sociology and Political Science, 1993, p. 19 ff .; Retrieved February 23, 2012.
- Wolfgang Gruber: Adriatic habitat between 1355 and 1456. Investigation of the geographical, social, economic and historical circumstances of the Adriatic region in the late Middle Ages . P. 178.
- V. Minorsky: Uzun Ḥasanb.'Alī b. Ḳara Yoluḳʿ Uthmān. In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition . Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, CE Bosworth, E. van Donzel and WP Heinrichs. Brill, 2012. Brill Online. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
- Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer: History of the Empire of Trebizond. Munich 1827, p. 264.
- Franz Babinger : Mehmed the Conqueror. World striker at a turning point. Piper, Munich 1987, ISBN 3-492-10621-8 , pp. 195 f., 231 f. And 246 f.
- Suraiya Faroqhi: History of the Ottoman Empire . First edition, Munich 2000, p. 18.
- Joseph von Hammer: History of the Ottoman Empire . Volume 2. Pest 1828, p. 98 ff.
- Klaus Kreiser: Brief history of Turkey . 2nd updated and expanded edition. Stuttgart 2003, p. 97.
- Klaus Kreiser: The Ottoman State 1300-1922 . 2nd, updated edition, Munich 2008, p. 24.
- F. Sümer: Karaman oghullari̊ (Ḳaramānids). In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition . Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, CE Bosworth, E. van Donzel, WP Heinrichs. Brill, 2012. Brill Online. Retrieved January 20, 2012
- Hans Robert Roemer: The Turkmen Intermezzo . In: Archaeological Communications from Iran . NF 9 (1976), p. 292.
- Klaus Kreiser: The Ottoman State 1300-1922 . 2nd, updated edition, Munich 2008, p. 59.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed's I. Marriage with Sitt-Chatun (1449) . In: Islam . Volume 29 (2), 1950.
- Klaus Kreiser: Brief history of Turkey . 2nd updated and expanded edition, Stuttgart 2003, p. 99.
- Halil İnalcık: The Re-building of Istanbul by Sultan Mehmed The Conqueror. In: Cultura Turcica , Volume IV, No. 1-2, 1967, p. 5 f.
- Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, p. 9, based on a letter from Akşemseddin (Topkapı Sarayı Museum, archive number E. 5584).
- Michael Kritobulos: Historien (1458). III, § 67–70, German translation in: Stéphane Yerasimos: Konstantinopel. Istanbul's historical heritage. Tandem-Verlag 2007, p. 208.
- ʿĀşıḳ-Paşa-zāde: Tevārīḫ-i Āl-i ʿOs̲mān (ʿĀşıḳ-Paşa-zāde Tārīḫi). Text edition Friedrich Giese (ed.): The old Ottoman chronicle of ʿĀšiḳpašazāde. Reissued on the basis of several newly discovered manuscripts. Reprint of the 1929 edition. Otto Zeller Verlag, Osnabrück 1972, p. 132.
- Translation ʿĀşıḳ-Paşa-zāde: From the shepherd's tent to the high gate. The early days and rise of the Ottoman Empire according to the chronicle “Memories and times of the House of Osman” by the dervish Ahmed, called ʿAşik-Paşa-Son. Second edition. Translated, introduced and explained by Richard F. Kreutel. Styria, Graz / Vienna / Cologne 1959 ( Ottoman historians. Volume 3), p. 199.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 110.
- Anthony Bryer: Gibbon and the later Byzantine Empires. In: Rosamond McKitterick (ed.): Edward Gibbon and empire. Cambridge 2002, p. 109 f., Especially note 33.
- So Ṭursun Beğ: Tārīḫ-i Ebū ʾl-Fetḥ. Annotated reprint by Halil İnalcık, Rhoads Murphey: The History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Tursun Beg. Minneapolis / Chicago 1978, f. 51a.
- Alfons Maria Schneider , Hans Reinhard Seeliger (Ed.): Reticulum. Selected articles and catalog of his collections. Münster 1998, p. 222.
- Halil İnalcık: The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine . In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers . Volume 23/24 (1969/1970), p. 233.
- Steven Runciman: The conquest of Constantinople 1453. From the English by Peter de Mendelssohn. CH Beck, Munich 1966, p. 154.
- Stéphane Yerasimos: Constantinople. Istanbul's historical heritage. Tandem-Verlag 2007, p. 208 f.
- Halil İnalcık: The Re-building of Istanbul by Sultan Mehmed The Conqueror. In: Cultura Turcica. Volume IV, No. 1-2, 1967, p. 12.
- Halil İnalcık: The Re-building of Istanbul by Sultan Mehmed The Conqueror. In: Cultura Turcica. Volume IV, No. 1-2, 1967, p. 8.
- Halil İnalcık: Devlet-i ʿAliyye. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Üzerine Araştırmalar. I. Seventh edition. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Istanbul 2009, ISBN 978-9944-88-645-1 , p. 125.
- Michael Kritobulos: Historien (1458). III, § 67–70, German translation in: Stéphane Yerasimos: Konstantinopel. Istanbul's historical heritage. Tandem-Verlag 2007, p. 209.
- Klaus Kreiser: Istanbul. A historical and literary city guide. Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-406-47191-9 , p. 15 f.
- Ömür Bakırer: Sources and documents on Mehmet the Conqueror as the patron of architecture. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, p. 45 f.
- Halil İnalcık: The Re-building of Istanbul by Sultan Mehmed The Conqueror. In: Cultura Turcica. Volume IV, No. 1-2, 1967, p. 15.
- Ernst Werner: The birth of a great power - the Ottomans (1300-1481). Berlin 1978, p. 282 f.
- Halil İnalcık: Devlet-i ʿAliyye. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Üzerine Araştırmalar. I. Seventh edition. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Istanbul 2009, ISBN 978-9944-88-645-1 , p. 128.
- Heinrich Renner: Through Bosnia and Hercegovina criss-cross. Second edition, Berlin 1897, p. 33.
- Kate Fleet: Mehmed II. In: Charlotte Bretscher-Gisiger (Ed.): Lexicon of the Middle Ages. Volume 6, Munich 2002.
- Instead of many see Gülru Necipoğlu: Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power. The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts) / London / New York 1991, p. 16.
- other hand, see Konrad Dilger: Studies on the history of the Ottoman court ceremony in the 15th and 16th centuries. Trofenik, Munich 1967, p. 14 ff.
- On fratricide in the Ottoman Empire see Mehmet Akman: Osmanlı Devletinde Kardeş Katli. Eren Yayıncılık, Istanbul 1997, ISBN 975-7622-65-6 .
- Ḳānūn-nāme Mehmed II, Chapter Two:و هر کمسنه یه اولادمدن سلطنت میسر اوله قرنداشلرین نظام عالم ایچون قتل ایتمك من اسبدر اهکود من اسبدر اکثکود لع اسبدر/ Ve her kimesneye evlādımdan salṭanat müyesser ola ḳarındaşların niẓām-ı ʿālem içün ḳatl ėtmek münāsibdir eks̲er-i ʿulemā daḫi tecvīz ėtmişdir , with regard to the order of the Sultan, it is permitted to every descendant of the Sāmilat erlangar ʿā to kill his brothers. Most of the "Ulem" have given their approval. So let them act. ' Quoted from Meḥmed ʿĀrif (ed.): Ḳānūn-nāme-ʾi Āl-i ʿOs̲mān. In: Taʾrīḫ-i ʿOs̲mānī Encümeni Mecmūʿası. Annex to No. 14, 1330 (1912), p. 27. Translation by Konrad Dilger: Investigations into the history of the Ottoman court ceremony in the 15th and 16th centuries. Trofenik, Munich 1967, p. 30.
- Franz Babinger (introduction and edition): Sultanic documents on the history of the Ottoman economy and state administration of the rule of Mehmed II, the Conqueror. First part: The Qânûn-nâme-i sulṭânî on mûdscheb-i ʿörf-i ʿos̲mânî. Munich 1956, p. VII. Online at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek , accessed on August 2, 2016
- Halil İnalcık. Ḳānūnnāme. In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition . Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, CE Bosworth, E. van Donzel, WP Heinrichs. Brill, 2011. Brill Online. Retrieved February 8, 2011.
- Franz Babinger (introduction and edition): Sultanic documents on the history of the Ottoman economy and state administration of the rule of Mehmed II, the Conqueror. First part: The Qânûn-nâme-i sulṭânî on mûdscheb-i ʿörf-i ʿos̲mânî. Munich 1956, p. VIII ff. Online at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek , accessed on August 2, 2016
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 450 ff.
- Claude Cahen: ḎH̲imma. and MOH Ursinus: Millet . In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition . Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, CE Bosworth, E. van Donzel, WP Heinrichs. Brill, 2011. Brill Online. Retrieved February 9, 2011.
- Anton C. Schaendlinger: Ottoman Numismatics . Braunschweig 1973, p. 92 f.
- Franz Babinger: The riddle about the gold loot from Byzantium (1453). In: Journal of the German Oriental Society. Volume 107, 1957, p. 545 ff.
- Şevket Pamuk: Money in the Ottoman Empire. In: Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataert (eds.): An economic and social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914. Cambridge 1994, p. 953.
- Şevket Pamuk: A monetary history of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge 2000, pp. 60 f.
- Halil İnalcık: Rice Cultivation and the Çeltükci-Reʿâyâ System in the Ottoman Empire. In: Halil İnalcık: Studies in Ottoman Social an Economic History. VI, London 1985, pp. 75-80.
- Şevket Pamuk: A monetary history of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge 2000, p. 48.
- Graphic on the silver content of Ottoman silver coins , based on Şevket Pamuk: Prices and Wages in the Ottoman Empire, 1469–1914 . Retrieved March 7, 2011.
- Walther Hinz: Islamic currencies of the 11th to 19th centuries converted into gold. A contribution to Islamic economic history. Wiesbaden 1991, p. 40 f.
- Franz Babinger (introduction and edition): Sultanic documents on the history of the Ottoman economy and state administration of the rule of Mehmed II, the Conqueror. First part: The Qânûn-nâme-i sulṭânî on mûdscheb-i ʿörf-i ʿos̲mânî. Munich 1956, p. XII f. ( Online at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek , accessed on August 2, 2016).
- In contrast to the “Old Mosque”, the first mosque built after the conquest at the tomb of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari ; see Gülru Necipoğlu: From Byzantine Constantinople to Ottoman Kostantiniyye: Creation of a Cosmopolitan Capital an Visual Culture under Sultan Mehmed II. In: Çağatay Anadol, Doğan Kuban (editor / editor): From Byzantion to Istanbul: 8000 years of a capital. Istanbul 2010, p. 266.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, pp. 264-266.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 450.
- Hubertus Günther: The Ottoman renaissance of antiquity in comparison with the Italian renaissance. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, pp. 93-138. ( online ).
- Gülru Necipoğlu: From Byzantine Constantinople to Ottoman Kostantiniyye: Creation of a Cosmopolitan Capital an Visual Culture under Sultan Mehmed II. In: Çağatay Anadol, Doğan Kuban (publisher / editor): From Byzantion to Istanbul: 8000 years of a capital. Istanbul 2010, p. 262.
- Julian Raby: A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a patron of the arts. In. The Oxford Art Journal . 5/1 1982, p. 6 f.
- Gülru Necipoğlu: From Byzantine Constantinople to Ottoman Kostantiniyye: Creation of a Cosmopolitan Capital an Visual Culture under Sultan Mehmed II. In: Çağatay Anadol, Doğan Kuban (publisher / editor): From Byzantion to Istanbul: 8000 years of a capital. Istanbul 2010, pp. 273-276.
- Jürg Meyer zur Capellen: Gentile Bellini as a portrait painter at the court of Mehmet II. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, pp. 141–146.
- Entry "Mehmed II, Sultan of Turkey" by Bertoldo di Giovanni (British Museum) at Art Fund . Retrieved January 30, 2011.
- Jürg Meyer zur Capellen: Gentile Bellini. Stuttgart 1985, pp. 17-21.
- On contemporary miniature painting see Esin Atil: Ottoman Miniature Painting under Sultan Mehmed II. In: Ars Orientalis , Volume 9, 1973, pp. 103-120.
- Jürg Meyer zur Capellen: Gentile Bellini at the court of Mehmet II. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, pp. 139–160.
- Julian Raby: A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a patron of the arts. In. The Oxford Art Journal 5/1, 1982, p. 4 f.
- See also Karl Woermann: History of art of all times and peoples . Volume 2: The art of indigenous peoples and other non-Christian civilized peoples, including the art of Islam . Leipzig 1905, p. 656.
- Marcel Restle: Mehmed Fatih - The Fall of Constantinople 1453. In: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden (Ed.): In the light of the half moon. Dresden 1995, p. 50 f.
- Michael Rogers: Mehmet II. And the natural sciences. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, p. 78.
- Christos P. Patrinelis: Mehmed II the Conqueror and his Presumed Knowledge of Greek and Latin. In: Viator 2 (1971), pp. 349-354.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed II and Italy. In: Byzantion . 21 (1951), p. 10.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 451.
- Halil İnalcık: The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine . In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers . Volume 23/24 (1969/1970), p. 236.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 532 ff.
- Franz Babinger: Reliqui hunter at the Ottoman court in the XV. Century. In: Bavarian Academy of Sciences - Philosophical-historical class: session reports . Born in 1956, No. 2, Munich 1956, pp. 3–47. badw.de (PDF)
- Michael Rogers: Mehmet II. And the natural sciences. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, p. 79 f.
- Michael Rogers: Mehmet II. And the natural sciences. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, p. 83 f.
- Michael Reinhard Heß: The Turkish divan literature. History, forms, effects. P. 12 f. ( PDF; 479 KB ( Memento of the original dated December 4, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this note. ) .
- Translation of Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall: History of Ottoman poetry up to our time. First volume, Pesth 1836, p. 137.
- Translation of Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall: History of Ottoman poetry up to our time. First volume, Pesth 1836, p. 138 ( Karaman means the Karamanide İbrahim Bey).
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 512.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 515.
- Walter G. Andrews and Mehmet Kalpaklı: The age of beloveds: Love and the beloved in early-modern Ottoman and European culture and society. Durham 2005, p. 197.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 508 f.
- Peter Schreiner: The epoch of Mehmet the Conqueror in contemporary sources from the patriarchy. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, p. 35 ff.
- Haydar Sanal: Mehter Musikisi. Bestekâr mehterler - Mehter havaları. Istanbul 1964, pp. 16-19.
- Haydar Sanal: Mehter Musikisi. Bestekâr mehterler - Mehter havaları. Istanbul 1964, pp. 23-26.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 461 f.
- Serafettin Turan: Bayezid II. In: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Volume 5, TDV Yayını, Istanbul 1992, p. 234.
- Cf. ʿĀşıḳ-Paşa-zāde: Tevārīḫ-i Āl-i ʿOs̠mān (ʿĀşıḳ-Paşa-zāde Tārīḫi). Text edition Friedrich Giese (ed.): The old Ottoman chronicle of ʿĀšiḳpašazāde. Reissued on the basis of several newly discovered manuscripts. Reprint of the 1929 edition. Otto Zeller Verlag, Osnabrück 1972, p. 204.
- See Kasım's letter to Sultan Bayezid II, Topkapı Sarayı Arşivi Evrak № 735/21; published by İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı: Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Ölümü. In: Belleten , Volume 34, No. 134, April 1970, ttk.gov.tr ). , pp. 231-234 (
- İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı: II. Bayezid'in Oğullarından Sultan Korkut. In: Belleten , Volume 30, No. 120, October 1966, pp. 539-601, here: p. 542, ttk.gov.tr ). (
- Halil İnalcık: Devlet-i ʻAliyye. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Üzerine Araştırmalar. Seventh edition. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Istanbul June 2009, ISBN 978-9944-88-645-1 , p. 129 f.
- İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı: Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Ölümü. In: Belleten , Volume 39, No. 155, July 1975, pp. 473-481, ttk.gov.tr ). (
- Erhan Afyoncu, Mehmet Önal, Uğur Demir: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Askeri İsyanlar ve Darbeler. Yeditepe Yayınevi, Istanbul 2010, ISBN 978-605-4052-20-2 , p. 18 f.
- Yusuf Küçükdağ: Karamani Mehmed Paşa. In: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Volume 24, TDV Yayını, Istanbul 2001, p. 450.
- İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı: Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Ölümü. In: Belleten , Volume 34, No. 134, April 1970, pp. 231-234, ttk.gov.tr ). (
- Diether Roderich Reinsch: Mehmet the Conqueror in the representation of the contemporary Byzantine historians . In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, pp. 15-30.
- Abraham of Ankyra: Elegy about the capture of Constantinople. In: Mesrob K. Krikorian and Werner Seibt (introduction and translation): The conquest of Constantinople in 1453 from an Armenian perspective. Graz et altera 1981, p. 47 f.
- ديوان اولدی ديوان اسارایی كه ايمّهٔ كفر ادی بلوك بلوك كترديلر كمی تيغ یاسایه ماااحق ایبیم/ Dīvān oldı, dīvān-ı üsārāyı, ki eimme-ʾi küfr idi, bölük bölük getirdiler. Kimi tīġ-i yasaya mülḥaḳ oldı ve baʿżī li-maṣlaḥatin ibḳā olınıb ṣaḳlanması emr olındı ; See Halil İnalcık and Rhoads Murphey (introduction, summary translation, edition as facsimile): The history of Mehmed the Conqueror by Tursun Beg. Minneapolis / Chicago 1978, p. 37.
- Ferenc Majoros, Bernd Rill: The Ottoman Empire 1300-1922. The story of a great power. Weltbild Verlag, Augsburg 2000, ISBN 3-8289-0336-3 , III. Chapter, p. 154 f.
- Mathias Bernath (Hrsg.): Historische Bücherkunde Südosteuropa. Volume I, Part 1, Middle Ages. P. 222.
- Emil Jacobs: Mohammed II, the conqueror, his relations with the Renaissance and its collection of books. . In: Oriens. Volume 2, No. 1, 1949, p. 10.
- Renate Lachmann: Memoirs of a Janissary or Turkish Chronicle. Styria Verlag, Graz et al. 1975, ISBN 3-222-10552-9 , p. 104 f.
- Fabian Fischer: The picture of Europe of the humanist and Pope Enea Silvio Piccolomini / Pius II (term paper for obtaining the master’s degree at the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Faculty 09 for History and Art Studies), Munich 2007, p. 62 f. ( uni-muenchen.de (PDF; 1.74 MB); accessed on February 16, 2011).
- Reinhold F. Glei and Markus Köhler: Pius II. Papa Epistola ad Mahumetem. Introduction, critical edition, translation. Trier 2001, pp. 143-145.
- Reinhold F. Glei and Markus Köhler: Pius II. Papa Epistola ad Mahumetem. Introduction, critical edition, translation. Trier 2001, pp. 25-28.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 460 ff.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, pp. 460-468.
- Michael Rogers: Mehmet II. And the natural sciences. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, p. 77.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 511 f.
- سيدة الخواتین المسيحية آنام دسپنه خاتون/ seyyidet ül-ḫavātīn il-mesīḥiyye, anam Despina Ḫātūn ; cf. Franz Babinger: A license from Mehmed II, the Conqueror, for the Hagia Sophia monastery at Saloniki, property of the Sultan Mara (1459). In: Byzantine Journal. Volume 44 (= Festschrift dedicated to Franz Dölger on the occasion of his 60th birthday ). Munich 1951, p. 15 ff.
- Literally translated, Despina Hatun means "mistress (and) wife of the ruler". See also JA Boyle: Ḵh̲ātūn. In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition . Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, CE Bosworth, E. van Donzel and WP Heinrichs. Brill, 2011. Brill Online. Retrieved March 19, 2011.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 69.
- Mihailo St. Popović: Mara Branković. A woman between the Christian and the Islamic cultures in the 15th century. Mainz and Ruhpolding 2010, ISBN 978-3-938646-49-6 , p. 120 f.
- "[...] jako prisnuju svoju materī carī Muchamed ljubljaše pročitovaše [...]" (transcription by Mihailo St. Popović). See Mihailo St. Popović: Mara Branković. A woman between the Christian and the Islamic cultures in the 15th century. Mainz and Ruhpolding 2010, ISBN 978-3-938646-49-6 , p. 74 f.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 175.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 451 ff.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Munich 1953, p. 459.
- Hans-Christoph book : Killing, out of love . In: Die Zeit , No. 27/1999
- Jochen Neubauer: Turkish Germans, Kanaksters and Deutschländer: Identity and Perception of Others in Film and Literature: […] . Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann 2011, p. 157 ff.
- Quote from Stefan Zweig: The Conquest of Byzantium ( online ; accessed October 27, 2017).
- Inge Meidinger-Geise (ed.): Perspektiven German poetry . Volume 7 (magazine), Nuremberg: Glock and Lutz 1963, p. 14
- Halim Kara: The literary portrayal of Mehmed II in Turkish historical fiction . In: New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 36 (2007), pp. 71–95, here p. 71.
- Halim Kara: The literary portrayal of Mehmed II in Turkish historical fiction . In: New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 36 (2007), pp. 71-95, here pp. 73-78 (English).
- Halim Kara: The literary portrayal of Mehmed II in Turkish historical fiction . In: New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 36 (2007), pp. 71-95, here pp. 78-81 (English).
- Halim Kara: The literary portrayal of Mehmed II in Turkish historical fiction . In: New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 36 (2007), pp. 71-95, here pp. 81-84 (English).
- Birgit Moser and Michael Weithmann: Country Studies Turkey: History, Society and Culture . Helmut Burske Verlag, Hamburg 2008, p. 252.
- Ursula Böhmer: "Maometto II" in Wildbad. Schmonzetten material, but a singing festival at its finest. Deutschlandfunk, July 17, 2017, accessed on October 27, 2017 .
- Peter Stachel, Philipp Ther (ed.): How European is the opera ?: the history of music theater as access to a cultural topography of Europe . Oldenbourg, 2009, p. 24.
- Perna Pekensen: Past as popular culture. The Ottoman Empire on Turkish television today . In: Contemporary historical research . Issue 1, 2015, zeithistorische-forschungen.de, accessed on October 29, 2017
- Patrizia Kern: Panoramas of the War: Negotiating National Identity Using the Staging of Martial Founding Myths in Turkish Museums, 2002-2009 . Heidelberg 2013, pp. 137–154. uni-heidelberg.de (PDF) Retrieved October 29, 2017
- Klaus Kreiser: The conquest of Constantinople under different auspices . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung, February 27, 2012; Retrieved October 29, 2017.
- Rüdiger Suchsland: The conquest of Istanbul . In: Telepolis of April 19, 2012. Online . Retrieved October 29, 2017.
- Homepage of the FSMVÜ . Retrieved January 14, 2018.
- Homepage of Özel Sultan Fatih Eğitim Kurumları . Retrieved January 14, 2018.
- İstanbul Tabiat Parkları (Turkish) . Retrieved January 15, 2018.
- Franz Babinger: Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton University Press, 1978, p. XI.
- Klaus Kreiser: The Ottoman State 1300-1922 . 2nd, updated edition, Munich 2008, p. 120, ISBN 3-486-58588-6 .
- Digitized University and State Library of Saxony-Anhalt (ULB)
- See also the spelling of the contemporary Sphrantze "Μϵϵμέτης" and coins of Mehmed II with the Greek inscription "Μαχαμϵτης".
- The nicknameفاتح/ Fātiḥ / 'the Conqueror' only became popular later (especially in the 18th and 19th centuries). Cf. Mehmet İpşirli: Lakap. Osmanlılar'da Lakap. In: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Volume 27. TDV Yayını, Ankara 2003, p. 67.
- Ali Bey himself was not reported, as reported by Dukas and, based on this, also by Joseph von Hammer ( History of the Ottoman Empire. Volume 1, Hartleben, Pest 1827, p. 501), executed shortly after the murder of the prince, but took as Akıncı -Fuhrer took part in the campaign in Wallachia and died accordingly after 1462; see İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı: Evrenos. In: İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Volume 4, Millî Eğitim Basımevi, Istanbul 1977, pp. 414-418 (417).
- Ideal portrait of Sitti Hatun .
- The depiction of a Turk next to Pope Pius II on a fresco by Pinturicchio in Siena and on another fresco by Pinturicchio in the Vatican was interpreted as a portrait of Bajezid Osman. Cf. Alain Schnapp: The Discovery of the Past: Origins and Adventures of Archeology . Stuttgart 2009, p. 129 f. Both figures follow a drawing by Gentile Bellini . Retrieved March 28, 2013.
- Mihalıç, west of Bursa, is now called Karacabey , named after Celalettin Karacabey İbn-i Abdullah, a military leader of Murad II.
- Mehmed II here becomes Fātiḥ-i Ḳalʿe-i Ḳusṭanṭīnīye (فاتح قلعة قسطنطنية/ 'Conqueror of the fortress of Constantinople') and Ebū ʾl-Fetḥ (ابو الفتح / 'Father of Conquest').
- Cf. that of Alî b. Yahya designed, calligraphic inscription from 1478 on the Grand Gate (Bāb-ı Hümāyūn) of the Topkapı Palace, where Mehmed is referred to as "the conqueror of the fortress of Constantine, the father of victory". See also Klaus Kreiser: Istanbul. A historical and literary city guide. Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-406-47191-9 , p. 89.
- More details on Trapezunt's hoped-for allies against Mehmed II in David Komnenos' Latin letter to the Duke of Burgundy. In: Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer: History of the Empire of Trebizond. Munich 1827, p. 266 f.
- Uniface Bronze Portrait Medal, c.1460, attributed to Pietro da Milano . Illustration, description and historical and art-historical classification. Retrieved April 3, 2012.
- Entry on the painting The Sultan Mehmet II at the London National Gallery . Retrieved December 1, 2015.
- Cf. as a possible model a medal based on a design by Costanzo da Ferrara (around 1480).
- German for example: "Several beautiful paintings and a lot of merrymaking". See note 8, in Jürg Meyer zur Capellen : Gentile Bellini as a portrait painter at the court of Mehmet II. In: Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Ulrich Rehm (ed.): Sultan Mehmet II. Conqueror of Constantinople - patron of the arts. Cologne 2009, p. 156 f.
- With "crystal glass cutter" is probably meant a watch or glasses maker ("uno, che li facesse christallini"). Cf. Jürg Meyer zur Capellen: Gentile Bellini. Stuttgart 1985, pp. 17 and 109.
- On the pun "Ḳaramānī / ḳaram ānı" see Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall: History of Ottoman poetry up to our time. First volume, Pesth 1836, p. 138.
- Outdated plural of mehter . In: Karl Steuerwald: Turkish-German dictionary .
- Cf. Ḳānūn-nāme Mehmeds II., Second Porte:و جناب شریفمله كمسنه طعام یمك قانونم دكلدر مکر كه اهل عیالدن اولا اجداد عظامم اجداد عظامم وزرامسیله یرلر ن/ Ve cenāb-ı şerīfimle kimesne ṭaʿām yemek ḳānūnum değildir. Meğer ki ehl-i ʿiyālden ola. Ecdād-ı ʿiẓamım vüzerāsiyle yerler imiş, ben refʿ ėtmişimdir. / 'It is not my canon that someone should dine with my Imperial Majesty; let it be someone from imperial blood. My illustrious ancestors used to eat what I kept with their viziers. ' (Translation by Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall: The Ottoman Empire State Constitution and State Administration. Volume 1, Vienna 1815, p. 98).
- Cf. Ḳānūn-nāme Mehmeds II., Second Porte:اولا بر عرض اوده سی یاپلوب جناب شریفم پس پرده ده اوتوروب هفته ده درت کوضهن وزرام هو قا کی العرام همواب هالعر م مکورب عالعر م مورب عالعر م مکورب عالعر م مکورب عالعر م مکاب عالعر م مکاب/ Evvelā bir ʿarż odası yapılub, cenāb-ı şerīfim pes-i perdede oturub, haftada dört gün vüzerām ve ḳāżıʿaskerlerim ve defterdārlarım rikāb-ı hümāyūnuma ʿarża girs. / 'In the newly built audience hall, where my Imperial Majesty sits on the throne behind the curtain, my viziers , Kadiaskere and Defterdare are supposed to come to an audience four days a week […].' [Translation after Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall: The Ottoman Empire's State Constitution and State Administration. Volume 1, Vienna 1815, p. 96.].
Sultan of the Ottoman Empire
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES||Mehmed II. Fatih|
|BRIEF DESCRIPTION||Ottoman sultan|
|DATE OF BIRTH||March 30, 1432|
|PLACE OF BIRTH||Edirne , Ottoman Empire|
|DATE OF DEATH||May 3, 1481|
|PLACE OF DEATH||Gebze , Ottoman Empire|