1453: The Movie
- Thread starter Abdul Hadi Pasha
- Start date
I think that they also invented cannon, Janissaries, and Constantinople (or at least one out of those three).
Hmmm, interesting ideas. Liam Neeson would be a good choice for Constantine XI.
Pretty much agree that if Hollywood ever see fit to make this movie, they'll mangle it. Constantine will probably live happily ever after and have lots of kids with an Ottoman heiress or something with a garden full of cute dogs and cats, and Mehmet will be his best mate with that castle around the corner who pops round for dinner and drinks from time to time
As people generally trust me in these debates, and I have a reputation for not having an axe to grind, I do lean towards Pasha's description of the character and traits of Mehmet II. As someone who is deeply into both the Ottoman and Roman/Byzantine Empires, I have a great number of books on the subject, and have been fortunate enough to meet a number of people from across the world involved in this field and from all that when all's put together, it does seem to be the case.
Anyway, let's hope Ian doesn't notice this thread, and either agree to disagree and drop the arguments, or address the fun topic at hand chaps, eh?
Sargon
Pretty much agree that if Hollywood ever see fit to make this movie, they'll mangle it. Constantine will probably live happily ever after and have lots of kids with an Ottoman heiress or something with a garden full of cute dogs and cats, and Mehmet will be his best mate with that castle around the corner who pops round for dinner and drinks from time to time
As people generally trust me in these debates, and I have a reputation for not having an axe to grind, I do lean towards Pasha's description of the character and traits of Mehmet II. As someone who is deeply into both the Ottoman and Roman/Byzantine Empires, I have a great number of books on the subject, and have been fortunate enough to meet a number of people from across the world involved in this field and from all that when all's put together, it does seem to be the case.
Anyway, let's hope Ian doesn't notice this thread, and either agree to disagree and drop the arguments, or address the fun topic at hand chaps, eh?
Sargon
George Carty
Banned
One cartoon film about the fall of Constantinople actually had Orban imprisoned by the Byzantines (and rescued by Ottomans tunnelling into his cell). A bit far-fetched to say the least...
I don't get why everyone assumes that Hollywood would have botched the movie. Sure they do this a lot, but they manage to produce some good stuff from time to time.
I also don't why we actually need to turn whole said into villains. Letters from Iwo Jima, for example, while having quite similar setting (doomed, desperate siege), manage to present almost exclusive Japanese perspective without vilifying Americans.
I also don't why we actually need to turn whole said into villains. Letters from Iwo Jima, for example, while having quite similar setting (doomed, desperate siege), manage to present almost exclusive Japanese perspective without vilifying Americans.
Buyrun!
We needed a genuine Turk here to add spice to mostly inter-American quarrels.
Mehmed strictly limited the plunder of the city, restored Greeks to their property, granted them special privileges, and created the circumstances for their prosperity and cultural revival.
The death toll in the siege on the Greek side was supposedly 4,000. That's quite remarkably low considering all the fighting and that parts of the city were sacked. And remember, many of the villages inside the walls surrendered and were spared any damage at all, like the Phanar.
And I'm not sure I understand this double-standard. Christians routinely massacred the entire Muslim population of the lands they conquered - which is why there are no Muslims at all in areas that used to have Muslim majorities or large Muslim populations. The Ottomans on the other hand encouraged Greeks to remain in their homes and went through a lot of effort to return all their religious artifacts.
THIS is nationalist propaganda. And Turks NEEDED Christian subjects, their "kindness" was interested, to say the least. It meant Jizyah now, and later Devshirme recruits.
ps When I said thousands of dead, I meant the Turks also, their losses must have been of Soviet proportions if the accounts of the Fall are true. Double standard? Pfff. Be serious. There hasn't been any real uninterested decency in Christian-Muslim relationship up to the last decades.
basileus, so the Turks were 'interested' when they took over an area and thus allowed Christians(and Jews) to stay on, even taking in refugees(predominantly Jewish) fleeing Christian areas while Christians, Spanish most commonly, would murder or expel anyone who wasn't Christian AND anyone who was but had something the Spanish or the Catholic Inquisition wanted.
It should be obvious that this paints one group in a better light than the other.
As promised, the arguments in favor of expelling, effectively murdering, the half million Moriscos(converts to Catholicism) in Spain circa 1609:
1) None of them chose ecclesiastical careers.
2) In the army they were spies.
3) They monopolized arts and commerce.
4) Through their frugality they obliged 'Old' Christians to pay the greater part of the taxes on wine and meat.*
5) They did not buy land but leased it.
6) With their riches they could corrupt judges.
*Making up between 4-7% of the total population I assume this meant their alleged frugality meant they enjoyed less than 4-7% of the wine and meat and associated taxes.
Historians have noted that these charges are more damning against the accusers than the accused. Nonetheless a half million hard-working and industrious people with a stake in Spain's success(all easy to realize simply by reading the 'charges' against them) were ruined, expelled and, for the most part, murdered.
Except for those children four or younger who 'chose' to stay, regardless of what their parents wanted or whether the parents were being expelled. This is actually an improvement over the original proposal that, out of fear that the children might convert, they should all be kept as slaves.
One result was to remove the last large industrious population in Spain, while also destroying the best source of investment, as Morisco work ethics made such investments the most reliable.
It should be obvious that this paints one group in a better light than the other.
As promised, the arguments in favor of expelling, effectively murdering, the half million Moriscos(converts to Catholicism) in Spain circa 1609:
1) None of them chose ecclesiastical careers.
2) In the army they were spies.
3) They monopolized arts and commerce.
4) Through their frugality they obliged 'Old' Christians to pay the greater part of the taxes on wine and meat.*
5) They did not buy land but leased it.
6) With their riches they could corrupt judges.
*Making up between 4-7% of the total population I assume this meant their alleged frugality meant they enjoyed less than 4-7% of the wine and meat and associated taxes.
Historians have noted that these charges are more damning against the accusers than the accused. Nonetheless a half million hard-working and industrious people with a stake in Spain's success(all easy to realize simply by reading the 'charges' against them) were ruined, expelled and, for the most part, murdered.
Except for those children four or younger who 'chose' to stay, regardless of what their parents wanted or whether the parents were being expelled. This is actually an improvement over the original proposal that, out of fear that the children might convert, they should all be kept as slaves.
One result was to remove the last large industrious population in Spain, while also destroying the best source of investment, as Morisco work ethics made such investments the most reliable.
Casting
I reckon it would make - potentially a great movie; a tragedy, in the old Greek sense with no real villains. It could be done that way,thus avoiding all the angst on previous posts.
I really only know actors from the Anglosphere, so cannot suggest any Greek or Turkish people, but Constantine was 48 when the siege occurred, so I reckon either Liam Neeson or Jeremy Irons could do a great job of playing him. Kevin McKidd (Rome's Vorenus) as that Scottish engineer I had never heard of.
What about Russell Crowe as Guistiniani? If Irons is not playing Constantine, I could see him as either Loukas Notaras or Cardinal Isidore, with Ciaran Hinds as either the Pope back in Rome or maybe the Papal Legate in the town.
I could alternatively see Neeson as a Janissary commander. Maybe a role for Jean Reno or Gerard Depardieu?
I reckon it would make - potentially a great movie; a tragedy, in the old Greek sense with no real villains. It could be done that way,thus avoiding all the angst on previous posts.
I really only know actors from the Anglosphere, so cannot suggest any Greek or Turkish people, but Constantine was 48 when the siege occurred, so I reckon either Liam Neeson or Jeremy Irons could do a great job of playing him. Kevin McKidd (Rome's Vorenus) as that Scottish engineer I had never heard of.
What about Russell Crowe as Guistiniani? If Irons is not playing Constantine, I could see him as either Loukas Notaras or Cardinal Isidore, with Ciaran Hinds as either the Pope back in Rome or maybe the Papal Legate in the town.
I could alternatively see Neeson as a Janissary commander. Maybe a role for Jean Reno or Gerard Depardieu?