By the late 14th century, the conflict between Byzantium and the Ottoman Turks had arrived at the very gates of Constantinople. The Ottomans, who had appeared within the Byzantine eastern border a century previously, had expanded through Asia Minor rapidly, conquering city after city, and by the 1350s they had already obtained a foothold on European soil (G. Georgiadis Arnakis, Οἱ πρῶτοι Ὀθωμανοί. Συμβολὴ στὸ πρόβλημα τῆς πτώσεως τοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ τῆς Μικρᾶς Ἀσίας (1282-1337), Athens 1947; R. P. Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia, Bloomington 1983; S. Vryonis, The decline of byzantine civilization in Asia Minor, eleventh-fifteenth century, DOP 29 (1975), 351-356). The Ottomans, by contrast, exhibited dynamism and exploited to the fullest extent all opportunities available to them (close proximity to Constantinople, concept of “jihad”, involvement in Byzantine internal crisis) (Byzantium’s dynastic disputes was the main reason for the Ottoman presence in European territories in the mid -14th century, Kantakouzenos, Historiae, ed. L. Schopen, v. I-III (CSHB), Bonn 1828-1832, III, 32; Ducas, Chronographia, Byzantiner und Osmanen im Kampf um die Macht und das Überleben (1341-1462), ed. D.R. Reinsch, Berlin 2020, 94.14- 19 [hereafter: Ducas, Chronographia]. Cf. D. Nicol, The Byzantine family of Kantakouzenos ca. 1100-1460: A Genealogical and Prosopographical Study, Washington D.C. 1968, 57- 60; K. Todt, Kaiser Johannes VI Kantakuzenos und der Islam. Politische Realität und theologische Polemik im palaiologenzeitlichen Byzanz, Altenberge 1991, 52-55; A. Bryer, Greek historians on the Turks.
The case of the first Byzantine-ottoman marriage, in: The writing of history in the Middle Ages, ed. R. Davies – J. Wallace, Oxford 1981, 471-493), eventually surpassing and outclassing the other emirates of Asia Minor and subsequently expanding into the Balkan peninsula. Constantinople was the logical next prize in their conquests. It is quite likely that the Byzantine capital had been spared until then due to its strong landward fortifications and naturally defensible coastal position. The Ottoman army surrounded for the first time the land walls of Constantinople in 1394, setting a blockade to prevent shipments of food and supplies. The whole operation was ultimately unsuccessful, being called off eight years later in the summer of 1402, while further attempts against the City were mounted in the summer of 1422 and in the spring of 1453.
For a detailed analysis of the Ottoman attempts to conquer Constantinople, A. Athanasopoulos, Η Κωνσταντινούπολη σε οθωμανικό κλοιό (1394-1453), Athens 2022.
Indeed, during the final siege, when the Ottoman artillery had caused irreparable damage to the walls, litanies at the monastery of Chora were carried out on such a regular basis that the icon of the Theotokos ultimately remained there until the end (Dukas, Chronographia, XXXVIII.10:476. 1-5. Cf. also Leonardo di Chio, Account of the Fall of Constantinople to pope Nicholas V, in: La Caduta di Costantinopoli, v. I, ed. A. Pertusi, Milan 1976, 158. 389-399). After all, it was widely believed that, just like in previous cases in which Constantinople had been beset by similar threats, the city would be spared conquest by the infidels through the miraculous intervention of the Theotokos. Dukas records the words of the emperor saying that Theotokos will come and save them (Ducas, Chronographia, XIV.1:126. 10-11, XV.7: 138. 1-8).
This widespread belief among the besieged was documented and reproduced in historiographical and laudatory texts written by numerous contemporary authors. And when the Ottomans failed to conquer Constantinople, the Theotokos was credited as decisively contributing to the salvation of the City even more than the strong city walls or the diplomatic efforts of Manuel II (Ducas, Chronographia, ΧΧVIII.7: 338-340. Πρβ. J. Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus, 1391-1425. A Study in late Byzantine Statesmanship, New Jersey 1969, appendix XVIII, 504). Especially regarding the 1394-1402 blockade, the anonymous author informs the readers of his work already from its title that he will describe the miraculous event of the cessation of the blockade and the salvation of the City, “A narrative of this miracle by the Holy Theotokos during the reign of the most pious ruler Manuel Palaiologos”.
Demetrius Chrysoloras, in an encomiastic mood befitting an oration of gratitude to the Holy Theotokos, refers to the divine intervention that led to the end of the blockade and the retreat of the Ottoman forces (Actions de Grâces de Démétrius Chrysoloras à la Theotokos pour l’anniversaire de la bataille d’Ankara (28 Juillet 1403), ed. P. Gautier, REB 19 (1961), 350. 30-55). There are similar references regarding the siege of 1422; Ioannis Kananos informs the reader of what is to follow in his work already from the title (Kananos, Ioannis Canani de Constantinopolitana obsidione relatio. A Critical Edition, with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes of John Kananos’ Account of the siege of Constantinople in 1422, ed. A. Cuomo, Berlin 2016, 2, vv. 1-5).
The motif of the Theotokos who intervenes on the Byzantines’ behalf, guarding and rescuing Constantinople, had long preceded the Ottoman threat:
Un recit inedit, 11-14: Οὐ ταῦτα δὲ μόνον τὰ παράδοξα γεγόνασι θαύματα κατὰ διαφόρους καιρούς τε καὶ χρόνους ὑπὸ τῆς πανάγνου καὶ θεομήτορος, ἀλλὰ καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Παλαιολόγων γένους… (These strange miracles not only occurred at various previous times through the immaculate mother of God, but also now during the reign of the Palaiologan dynasty); Ducas, Chronographia, XXXVI.4: 448. 9-13: πίνοντες εἰς πρεσβείαν τῆς εἰκόνος τῆς Θεομήτορος καὶ παρακαλοῦντες αὐτὴν τοῦ γενέσθαι προστάτης καὶ ἀρωγὸς τῆς πόλεως ὥς ποτε κατὰ τοῦ Χοσρόου καὶ τοῦ Χαγάνου καὶ κατὰ Ἀράβων, οὕτω καὶ νῦν κατὰ τοῦ Μεχέμετ (drinking in supplication to the icon of the Mother of God and beseeching her to become the protector and bulwark of the City against Mehmed, as she had been against Khosrow, the Khagan, and the Arabs). After all, the Byzantines considered Constantinople to be the “divine-protected city”, which could never be taken by the forces of the infidel. Joseph Bryennios [(Δημηγορία περὶ τοῦ τῆς πόλεως ἀνακτίσματος, ed. Ν. Τωμαδάκης, ΕΕΒΣ 36 (1968)], 1-15 [(repr. in Id., Περί αλώσεως της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Thessaloniki 19932 , 239-252)] describes Constantinople as παλλάδιον Θεοῦ, (a palladium of God), Θεοτόκου τέμενος, (a temple of the Theotokos), and πόλις ἁγία (a holy city), while also affirming that the City had been ἐκ πρώτης ἀνατεθεῖσα καταβολῆς (dedicated at foundation) to the Theotokos, …οἶδα κἀγὼ καὶ ὡς ἡ Ὁδηγήτρια σκέπει ταύτην τὴν Πόλιν ἐπίσταμαι (…and I know that the Hodegetria protects this City).
The salvation of the City from the Avars is also connected with the famous Akathistos hymn, which was written during this period in order to praise the intervention of the Theotokos and the salvation of Constantinople (Cf. M. Baghos, Theotokoupoleis: The Mother of God as Protectress of the Two Romes, in: Mariology at the Beginning of the Third Millenium, ed. Κ. Wagner – I. Naumann – P. J. McGregor – P. Morrissey, Oregon 2017, 57-62; Β. Pentcheva, The supernatural protector of Constantinople: the Virgin and her icons in the tradition of the Avar siege, BMGS 26 (2002), 2-41; K. Karapli, Κατευόδωσις στρατού, η οργάνωση και η ψυχολογία του βυζαντινού στρατού πριν από τον πόλεμο (610-1081), Ι, Athens 2010, 75. Also, in a broader context, see A. Kaldellis, The Military Use of the Icon of the Theotokos and its Moral Logic in the Historians of the Ninth-Twelfth Centuries, Estudios bizantinos: Revista de la Sociedad Española de Bizantinística 1 (2013) 56-75). The situation was largely similar when the Arabs besieged Constantinople during the reign of Leo III, in 717; even though the fate of the empire was once again decided at sea, where the Byzantines crushed their foes, Byzantine authors once again ascribed the city’s salvation to Divine Providence (Theophanes the Confessor, ed. De Boor, I, Leipzig 1883, 397. Cf. the oration of the Patriarch Germanus, Ηomélie, de saint Germain sur la deliverance de Constantinople, ed. V. Grumel, REB 16 (1958), 183-205, in particular 193-196). Constantinople continued to be the “Theotokos-protected city” in the next centuries.
The literary tradition of divine intervention on behalf of the Byzantines was far more pronounced in the late Byzantine period. Indeed, the reconquest of the City itself by Michael Palaiologos in 1261 was attributed by historians and court orators to divine intervention, and was partly utilized to bolster Michael’s ideological pursuit of “legitimization” after seizing power from the underage John Laskaris (Acropolites, Georgii Acropolitae Opera, ed. Α. Heisenberg, Leipzig 1903 [reprint: P. Wirth, Stuttgart 1978], 184. 5-21). It thus becomes evident that the works of the anonymous writer, Demetrios Chrysoloras, and John Kananos were continuing a literary tradition that had been introduced several centuries earlier.
According to a conception that was already widespread in the previous century, the Ottoman conquest of Asia Minor was a consequence and punishment for the sins of the Byzantines, and something similar was to happen to Constantinople itself (Cf. Leonardo di Chio, 128. 44; Nestor Iskander, 57; Patriarch Athanasius, The Correspondence of Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters to the Emperor Andronicus II, Members of the Imperial Family and Officials, ed. Α. Μ. Talbot, Washington D.C 1975, 30. 5-7 and 160. 29-32. Also, Ι. Ševčenko, Alexios Makrembolites and his dialogue between the rich and the poor, ZRVI 6 (1960), 196-197). Many inhabitants associated their current predicament with older prophecies regarding the Fall of Constantinople. Already during the reign of Constantine the Great there was a widespread belief that Constantinople was not destined to be free forever. According to another such prophecy, the city was to fall during the reign of an emperor named Constantine, whose mother was named Helen. According to others, Constantine the Great himself had prophesized that Constantinople would fall in the days after a lunar eclipse (C. Mango, The Legend of Leo the Wise, ZRVI 6 (1960), 59-93; D. M. Nicol, The immortal emperor: the life and legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans, Cambridge 1992, 101. For prophecies regarding the fall of Constantinople, Les traditions apocalyptiques au tournant de la chute de Constantinople, ed. B. Lellouch – St. Yerassimos, Paris 1999). A portion of the population believed in the eschatological perception that the world would end in the year 7000 since its creation (1492), while others believed that social inequalities, civil wars, moral degradation, and the dwindling of Byzantine power, had all provoked Divine fury, which would find its ultimate expression in the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans.
As for the Theotokos, whose assistance had safeguarded Constantinople for centuries, prospects appeared equally bleak; during a litany that took place a few days before the final battle (St. Imellos, Θεοσημίες πρὸ τῆς Ἁλώσεως τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ὑπὸ τῶν Τούρκων κατὰ τὸν ἱστορικὸν Κριτόβουλον, ΕΕΒΣ 52 (2004-2006), 463) and was attended by almost the entire population of the city, the icon of the Theotokos, which was being held by the priests at the head of the procession, fell to the ground. The frightened inhabitants tried to lift it, but this was impossible as it seemed to be overweight. It took quite some time, multiple attempts and several prayers before the priests managed to place it on the shoulders of those who carried it. This incident spread panic among the faithful, who viewed the fall as anything but an auspicious omen for the fate of the City. Heavy rains began to fall soon after, blocking the procession of the gathered crowd, while children found themselves in danger of being swept away by the forceful torrents of rainwater. The bad omens for Constantinople’s future continued the following day when a dense cloud covered the whole city. The phenomenon lasted from dawn to dusk and was, of course, noticed by the entire population. According to the inhabitants, this meant the total abandonment of the City by the Holy Providence (Critobulus, 59).
