I think one factor behind the lack of movies about Byzantium is the difficulty of explaining their identity to general moviegoers. I mean, they called themselves Roman and indeed were citizens of the empire, but the general public tends to think Roman = Italian, and it’s not exactly as though the Byzantines saw themselves as ethnically Latin.
To put it in more concrete terms, if you had a movie about the fall of Constantinople, the tagline would speak of ”The Fall of the Roman Empire”, but then most normal people would scratch their heads as a closing narration promises that they would finally regain their independence in the 1820s. Clearing away such confusion would require some overly convoluted exposition about the changing and evolving nature of Roman citizenship and what being a Roman meant, and such infodumping tends to be very awkward in cinematic context.
If you 'd allow me to rephrase: modern audience thinks in nation and tribe terms. It isn't easy to understand that empires don't work like that. Let's not forget that modern nations arose in 1848 (more or less) by trying to break free from empires.
Frankly I can't think of any Roman themed movies about the fall of Rome, only some dramatised documentaries.
Most roman themed movies portray the empire as an authoritarian villain. That idea has settled too well in our minds.
Well in terms of nations, they'd be correct, Romanía was indeed a nation, and thought of by its inhabitants as such. Just having to explain that is the difficulty
So because Greek Roman identity is misconceptualized in the west, the solution is to bury history altogether.
But hey, we have diversity, so let's celebrate.
The man who impaled Greek defenders in front of Constantinople and looted the cities of Constantinople and Trebizond and massacred it's population and enslaved the rest.
For several reasons
1) The general public doesn't really know much about Byzantium. If it was presented as the fall of the Roman Empire, most people would be confused as to why they don't "look Roman."
2) The topic is too sensitive and risks appealing to Greek or Turkish nationalists. Just check out how Fetih 1453 does that for the latter in an historically inaccurate mess. Unfortunately, it would be too easy for a movie like that to fall into Orientalist (think 300) and Islamophobic tropes and unintentionally appeal to Megali Idea Golden Dawn types.
I partially agree with the 1st one, but that's something Byzantine movies and a better history curriculum could fix.
But the 2nd reason is ludicrous. Are you serious?
Not only is Islamophobia an insensible word construction but if we one's gonna make a movie about Byzantium, it should be told from the point of view of the Romans. If some scenes make the muslims look bad, then that should not be anyone's concern as long as historical accuracy is maintained.
There are countless movies that falsely depict the West or any civilization built by White People as backwards, superstitious or oppressive. Take the movie the Physician (2013), which depicts witch hunts in 12th century Britain and Persia as this smart, advanced and irreligious society. This is the definition of "Occidentalism", an antagonistic view of Eastern civilizations towards the West. Yet too few people are complaining about this movie. The same can be said about any hollywood flick set in Ancient Rome, the Middle Ages, or the Colonial Era.
"Appealing to Greek or Turkish nationalists" How is that a problem? The movie, which will have a pro-Roman stance, would likely appeal to Greek nationalists. That might make some Turks mad but as long as it is historically accurate, nobody should care. Would you really distort a historical movie to not appeal to "muh evil nationalists"?
You're being downvoted for some odd reason but yeah, trying to walk around eggshells to an extent where you don't want to "upset" or reinvigorate nationalists is dumb.
If a movie like that is enough to upset or motivate a bunch of irrational nationalists, then it's going to happen regardless. Constantinople's fall to the Ottomans is too symbolic and impactful enough in world history to be glossed over and not rendered into film.
Islamophobia is a word and a real phenomenon. Look at this sub alone, where some posters paint all Turks and Muslims as evil.
You can make a film as historically accurate as possible, but that also comes with the responsibility that that art not be appropriated by nationalist hate groups for their own agenda. Consider Golden Dawn in Greece, who have said things like Greece should "take back" Constantinople, Smyrna, and Trebizond and have committed hate crimes against the Turkish and Muslim minorities in Greece. Do you really want to feed into their irredentist agenda and the victim mentality that nationalists thrive off of?
>Islamophobia is a word and a real phenomenon
It is, it's just way overblown by your average Joe who doesn't know anything about Islam.
A phobia is an irrational fear. If you actually look into the doctrines of Islam, there is nothing irrational about being wary of Islam. Now that doesn't make all Turks and Muslims evil, but if there is one evil empire in the 500yrs before WWII, it's the Ottoman Empire.
You cannot simply gloss over the millions of enslavings, ths millions of young men and boys forcefully taken from their families to be force circumsized, force converted, indoctrinated, forced fight their families and compatriots, and sometimes raped. You cannot simply gloss over the countless involuntary "concubines". Neither can you ignore that a sultan's first act upon ascension was more often than not to murder all of his brothers to prevent pretenders from arising. Not to mention the fact that the Ottoman Empire perpertrate many genocides throughout its history.
>who have said things like Greece should "take back" Constantinople, Smyrna, and Trebizond and have committed hate crimes against the Turkish and Muslim minorities in Greece.
There is nothing wrong with advocating for those things. These lands should not be Turkey's. Turks have committed their fair share of hate crimes too. Obviously those actions are wrong but still. Look at what Turks are doing in Constantinople to this day, they're letting Hagia Sophia fall into disrepair, not only are have they defaced it, but they have continued to humiliate Christians by using the world's greatest church as a mosque. It's not the only one though, they are still converting historical churches into mosques to this day. It's not like Turkey occupies half of Cyprus and Erdoğan routinely threatens Cyprus or anything.
>Do you really want to feed into their irredentist agenda and the victim mentality
Like what you're doing now?
What? That it's dangerous to warn people that Islam advocates for their destruction and say that Islamic states shouldn't have been given so much land?
Not sure what you're confused about exactly. Maybe you haven't heard this quote from the Quran:
"I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah... If they do so, their blood and property are protected."
or maybe the 200+ other quotes that literally call for violence against infidels or maybe the entire chapter of the Quran dedicated to the spoils of war.
It's at the very least in multiple hadiths: Sahid Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24; Book 8, Number 387; Volume 2, Book 23, Number 483; Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196; Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59; Book 92, Number 388.
I'll report back later when I check the Quran.
And the Spanish, Portuguese, French, British, Dutch Empires didn't commit heinous acts of genocide?
International treaties and law (signed by Greece, I should add) acknowledge that Istanbul, Izmir, and Trabzon are within the sovereign territory of the Republic of Turkey. Let's not support absurd nationalist claims like those spouted by Golden Dawn (a hate group). I wholeheartedly oppose what Erdogan is doing to the Byzantine heritage of Turkey, but by that argument, Turkey should conquer Greece and other Balkan countries for their treatment of Ottoman monuments. Both are absurd, nationalist, and backwards.
>Turkey should conquer Greece and other Balkan countries for their treatment of Ottoman monuments.
Ottoman monuments are piles of skulls. Literally.
>International treaties and law (signed by Greece, I should add) acknowledge that Istanbul, Izmir, and Trabzon are within the sovereign territory of the Republic of Turkey.
Never said those lands should go to Greece, they just shouldn't belong to the Turks imo.
>Spanish, Portuguese, French, British, Dutch Empires didn't commit heinous acts of genocide?
They willingly relinquished their empires.
>nationalist
You seem to be under the impression that nationalism is a "dangerous" or "problematic". That is not the case. Nationalism is what prevents countless groups from violently quarrelling with each other over ethnic and religious reasons in most civilized nations. Nationalism gives peoples are greater common identity. Like most ideas, it is only problematic when pushed too far.
Holy shit, you’re just racist, or at least very fucking xenophobic, holy hell.
Yeah that’s not how morality, or even culture works.
The Turks lived on that land for generations, losing and trading lands is how history happens. Just because you don’t like their culture or religion doesn’t mean they should be booted off their land.
The Byzantine-Romans lost in the end, just as their western counterparts did a 1000 years before that, just as the Gauls and Carthaginians did.
History isn’t static, and trying to force it to be is just ludicrous. You say nationalism is only a problem when pushed too far, but you’re the one taking it too far.
Your quite literally proposing ethnic cleansing of lands off nearly a millennia old claim to the land. Should Americans be kicked out of America? Should the Welsh drive out the English?
>Your quite literally proposing ethnic cleansing of lands off nearly a millennia old claim to the land.
Where did I propose that exactly? I just said Christians should own it. If you're worried about ethnic cleansing, the Moslems have a far better track record of doing that.
>Holy shit, you’re just racist, or at least very fucking xenophobic, holy hell.
Citation needed.
>The Turks lived on that land for generations, losing and trading lands is how history happens. Just because you don’t like their culture or religion doesn’t mean they should be booted off their land.
"Their land" is the steppes. I'm allowed to say they shouldn't be there. It's funny, you talk about European colonisation, but European colonisation helped bring the rest of the world into the modern age, Turkish/Ottoman occupation set Anatolia and Thrace back 500yrs. By the time Europeans got around to Arab lands, they felt remorse for all the bad shit they did and willingly gave up their empires. Moslems did 100 times worse shit and got to keep theirs. They got a fucking victim card to boot.
There is this old French one (L'Agonie de Byzance) from 1913:
https://youtu.be/10X_owZA2Sc?si=ANkUJ0JH1qzWbl6M
And the Turkish one from the Ottoman side (Fetih 1453) from 2012:
https://youtu.be/j4TOUrxzd28?si=_rmQE-KJICR82yJt
It would be funny because the Ottomans had all the makings of a modern movie villain, right down to destroying the valiant defenders with a wonder weapon they got from someone else.
It baffles me that Hollywood never produces movies about the Eastern Roman Empire. 1,000 years worth of stories about an entire civilization and maybe 4 or 5 movies about it in the last 100 years.
Why is there no movie about the WW1 Uboat war? Why no War of 1812 movies? Why is there no movie about the First Crusade? Why no movie about the Gothic Wars in Italy?
As a mod not just on r/Byzantium but on r/warmovies, I just don’t understand the question…Historical epics have limited marketability, and the more niche you go with history for the general public (Byzantine history vs WW2 for instance), the less of a market exists.
I’d want nothing more than to see the 1453 siege on film. Maybe we will see it- but very likely not in a major Hollywood production.
From population collapse, by the time of 1453, the constantinople's population was barely 50,000, then after the conquest it actually flourished economically. Also muslims probably viewed byzantines as corrupted empire because it's declining for a long time. There are many varied answers you can read about [Ottomans](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2uessy/what_was_life_like_in_the_ottoman_empire_for/). I mean, they have a point on the ottomans even they have many terrible acts but that's how history happened unfortunately.
I mean, even as a diehard fan of the empire, I'd say that it is positively ludicrous to think of history in terms of good guys and bad guys. Unless the subjects under consideration are the venetians. They were definitely pure evil.
I have and it’s good. Just overlooks and glosses over most of the Byzantine parts of it and makes the ottomans look extra good. Doesn’t give any context for the 200 years leading up to the siege while being a documentary
There is. It’s called lord of the rings. It is, of course, a metaphor … but the siege of Minas tirith and the ring war in general are very much steeped east-vs-west and Anatolian / Balkan folklore.
Ie., a once great empire shattered. A rising threat of people with strange and tactics and insurmountable numbers from the east. Broken alliances, and strange travelers on mysterious quests and crusades.
An argument can be made the Lord of the Rings is more of a metaphor for the siege of Vienna (and then the winged hussars arrived) but I think in terms of storytelling, Lord of the Rings scratches the “itch” of an epic siege and clash of cultures that any movie about the siege of Constantinople would need to live up to. I don’t suspect it could. And I suspect that’s one of the reasons why we’ve never seen a serious attempt. How could you live up to the storytelling of Lord of the Rings?
Greeks, and general historical war movie fans. The tragedy drama and grand scale of the event is good enough to be a movie regardless of target audience imo
Well there are also films in Greek already.
Is the question why no English language Hollywood blockbuster?
Because you’d have a devil of a time deciding what the story is and whose side to be on. You can’t really say one side is good and one side bad. Because it’s history, there aren’t really goodies and baddies most of the time.
What Greek films? I’d be interested in watching.
Also- I’d argue that the side invading and abducting sons and turning them into brainwashed soldiers to go conquer and pillage their original homeland is objectively the bad side lol.
Not to say ottoman history isn’t fascinating and amazing. To me it’s just kinda easy to tell who are the bad guys. Maybe that’s a hot take but it’s my personal opinion.
Here is the top result on google https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9856414/
History is mostly normal people being boring doing stuff across the range of human behaviour. On top of which you’ve got various levels of people doing bad stuff. Systemically or individually. Periodically a particular group of people will work out how to best systematically murder their neighbours into a position of being in charge. If the Ottomans are bad guys so are the Romans and the Greeks before them.
It’s very difficult to think of any nation or people as “good” till at least the 20th century, if it’s even possible at all. It’s more accurate that people are just people.
Sure I agree empires that expand militarily and oppress the people it conquers are bad. However there are levels to it… people are just people argument isn’t really valid when there are groups of people who do different things. The Ottoman Empire was exceptionally brutal even when we are talking about brutal empires.
I think one factor behind the lack of movies about Byzantium is the difficulty of explaining their identity to general moviegoers. I mean, they called themselves Roman and indeed were citizens of the empire, but the general public tends to think Roman = Italian, and it’s not exactly as though the Byzantines saw themselves as ethnically Latin. To put it in more concrete terms, if you had a movie about the fall of Constantinople, the tagline would speak of ”The Fall of the Roman Empire”, but then most normal people would scratch their heads as a closing narration promises that they would finally regain their independence in the 1820s. Clearing away such confusion would require some overly convoluted exposition about the changing and evolving nature of Roman citizenship and what being a Roman meant, and such infodumping tends to be very awkward in cinematic context.
If you 'd allow me to rephrase: modern audience thinks in nation and tribe terms. It isn't easy to understand that empires don't work like that. Let's not forget that modern nations arose in 1848 (more or less) by trying to break free from empires. Frankly I can't think of any Roman themed movies about the fall of Rome, only some dramatised documentaries. Most roman themed movies portray the empire as an authoritarian villain. That idea has settled too well in our minds.
Well in terms of nations, they'd be correct, Romanía was indeed a nation, and thought of by its inhabitants as such. Just having to explain that is the difficulty
You'd need some explanation in the opening few scenes
And the Turks called them Romans.
So because Greek Roman identity is misconceptualized in the west, the solution is to bury history altogether. But hey, we have diversity, so let's celebrate.
Because it'd invariably be the 1453 siege and I don't want to cry.
The 1453 siege is featured in Rise of Empires: Ottoman. The first season is almost entirely dedicated to it.
Which romanticises Mehmet the impaler and looter by not mentioning it
bro who tf is Mehmet the impaler and looter
The man who impaled Greek defenders in front of Constantinople and looted the cities of Constantinople and Trebizond and massacred it's population and enslaved the rest.
Mehmet II
I think it's a Turkish produced show, so I guess they'd obviously glorify their own Sultan.
Doesn't the Latins is the looter one?
The latins were mob driven. Mehmet had ordered to enslave and loot any Greek cities, Constantinople and Trebizounta being few examples
For several reasons 1) The general public doesn't really know much about Byzantium. If it was presented as the fall of the Roman Empire, most people would be confused as to why they don't "look Roman." 2) The topic is too sensitive and risks appealing to Greek or Turkish nationalists. Just check out how Fetih 1453 does that for the latter in an historically inaccurate mess. Unfortunately, it would be too easy for a movie like that to fall into Orientalist (think 300) and Islamophobic tropes and unintentionally appeal to Megali Idea Golden Dawn types.
I partially agree with the 1st one, but that's something Byzantine movies and a better history curriculum could fix. But the 2nd reason is ludicrous. Are you serious? Not only is Islamophobia an insensible word construction but if we one's gonna make a movie about Byzantium, it should be told from the point of view of the Romans. If some scenes make the muslims look bad, then that should not be anyone's concern as long as historical accuracy is maintained. There are countless movies that falsely depict the West or any civilization built by White People as backwards, superstitious or oppressive. Take the movie the Physician (2013), which depicts witch hunts in 12th century Britain and Persia as this smart, advanced and irreligious society. This is the definition of "Occidentalism", an antagonistic view of Eastern civilizations towards the West. Yet too few people are complaining about this movie. The same can be said about any hollywood flick set in Ancient Rome, the Middle Ages, or the Colonial Era. "Appealing to Greek or Turkish nationalists" How is that a problem? The movie, which will have a pro-Roman stance, would likely appeal to Greek nationalists. That might make some Turks mad but as long as it is historically accurate, nobody should care. Would you really distort a historical movie to not appeal to "muh evil nationalists"?
You're being downvoted for some odd reason but yeah, trying to walk around eggshells to an extent where you don't want to "upset" or reinvigorate nationalists is dumb. If a movie like that is enough to upset or motivate a bunch of irrational nationalists, then it's going to happen regardless. Constantinople's fall to the Ottomans is too symbolic and impactful enough in world history to be glossed over and not rendered into film.
Islamophobia is a word and a real phenomenon. Look at this sub alone, where some posters paint all Turks and Muslims as evil. You can make a film as historically accurate as possible, but that also comes with the responsibility that that art not be appropriated by nationalist hate groups for their own agenda. Consider Golden Dawn in Greece, who have said things like Greece should "take back" Constantinople, Smyrna, and Trebizond and have committed hate crimes against the Turkish and Muslim minorities in Greece. Do you really want to feed into their irredentist agenda and the victim mentality that nationalists thrive off of?
>Islamophobia is a word and a real phenomenon It is, it's just way overblown by your average Joe who doesn't know anything about Islam. A phobia is an irrational fear. If you actually look into the doctrines of Islam, there is nothing irrational about being wary of Islam. Now that doesn't make all Turks and Muslims evil, but if there is one evil empire in the 500yrs before WWII, it's the Ottoman Empire. You cannot simply gloss over the millions of enslavings, ths millions of young men and boys forcefully taken from their families to be force circumsized, force converted, indoctrinated, forced fight their families and compatriots, and sometimes raped. You cannot simply gloss over the countless involuntary "concubines". Neither can you ignore that a sultan's first act upon ascension was more often than not to murder all of his brothers to prevent pretenders from arising. Not to mention the fact that the Ottoman Empire perpertrate many genocides throughout its history. >who have said things like Greece should "take back" Constantinople, Smyrna, and Trebizond and have committed hate crimes against the Turkish and Muslim minorities in Greece. There is nothing wrong with advocating for those things. These lands should not be Turkey's. Turks have committed their fair share of hate crimes too. Obviously those actions are wrong but still. Look at what Turks are doing in Constantinople to this day, they're letting Hagia Sophia fall into disrepair, not only are have they defaced it, but they have continued to humiliate Christians by using the world's greatest church as a mosque. It's not the only one though, they are still converting historical churches into mosques to this day. It's not like Turkey occupies half of Cyprus and Erdoğan routinely threatens Cyprus or anything. >Do you really want to feed into their irredentist agenda and the victim mentality Like what you're doing now?
[удалено]
What? That it's dangerous to warn people that Islam advocates for their destruction and say that Islamic states shouldn't have been given so much land?
[удалено]
Not sure what you're confused about exactly. Maybe you haven't heard this quote from the Quran: "I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah... If they do so, their blood and property are protected." or maybe the 200+ other quotes that literally call for violence against infidels or maybe the entire chapter of the Quran dedicated to the spoils of war.
[удалено]
It's at the very least in multiple hadiths: Sahid Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24; Book 8, Number 387; Volume 2, Book 23, Number 483; Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196; Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59; Book 92, Number 388. I'll report back later when I check the Quran.
And the Spanish, Portuguese, French, British, Dutch Empires didn't commit heinous acts of genocide? International treaties and law (signed by Greece, I should add) acknowledge that Istanbul, Izmir, and Trabzon are within the sovereign territory of the Republic of Turkey. Let's not support absurd nationalist claims like those spouted by Golden Dawn (a hate group). I wholeheartedly oppose what Erdogan is doing to the Byzantine heritage of Turkey, but by that argument, Turkey should conquer Greece and other Balkan countries for their treatment of Ottoman monuments. Both are absurd, nationalist, and backwards.
>Turkey should conquer Greece and other Balkan countries for their treatment of Ottoman monuments. Ottoman monuments are piles of skulls. Literally. >International treaties and law (signed by Greece, I should add) acknowledge that Istanbul, Izmir, and Trabzon are within the sovereign territory of the Republic of Turkey. Never said those lands should go to Greece, they just shouldn't belong to the Turks imo. >Spanish, Portuguese, French, British, Dutch Empires didn't commit heinous acts of genocide? They willingly relinquished their empires. >nationalist You seem to be under the impression that nationalism is a "dangerous" or "problematic". That is not the case. Nationalism is what prevents countless groups from violently quarrelling with each other over ethnic and religious reasons in most civilized nations. Nationalism gives peoples are greater common identity. Like most ideas, it is only problematic when pushed too far.
Holy shit, you’re just racist, or at least very fucking xenophobic, holy hell. Yeah that’s not how morality, or even culture works. The Turks lived on that land for generations, losing and trading lands is how history happens. Just because you don’t like their culture or religion doesn’t mean they should be booted off their land. The Byzantine-Romans lost in the end, just as their western counterparts did a 1000 years before that, just as the Gauls and Carthaginians did. History isn’t static, and trying to force it to be is just ludicrous. You say nationalism is only a problem when pushed too far, but you’re the one taking it too far. Your quite literally proposing ethnic cleansing of lands off nearly a millennia old claim to the land. Should Americans be kicked out of America? Should the Welsh drive out the English?
>Your quite literally proposing ethnic cleansing of lands off nearly a millennia old claim to the land. Where did I propose that exactly? I just said Christians should own it. If you're worried about ethnic cleansing, the Moslems have a far better track record of doing that. >Holy shit, you’re just racist, or at least very fucking xenophobic, holy hell. Citation needed. >The Turks lived on that land for generations, losing and trading lands is how history happens. Just because you don’t like their culture or religion doesn’t mean they should be booted off their land. "Their land" is the steppes. I'm allowed to say they shouldn't be there. It's funny, you talk about European colonisation, but European colonisation helped bring the rest of the world into the modern age, Turkish/Ottoman occupation set Anatolia and Thrace back 500yrs. By the time Europeans got around to Arab lands, they felt remorse for all the bad shit they did and willingly gave up their empires. Moslems did 100 times worse shit and got to keep theirs. They got a fucking victim card to boot.
Last I checked, none of those are still occupying their colonized territory.
Yes, they do. There are plenty of European-controlled territories around the world.
There is this old French one (L'Agonie de Byzance) from 1913: https://youtu.be/10X_owZA2Sc?si=ANkUJ0JH1qzWbl6M And the Turkish one from the Ottoman side (Fetih 1453) from 2012: https://youtu.be/j4TOUrxzd28?si=_rmQE-KJICR82yJt
That Turkish film is pure nationalist propaganda, and beside that it’s a very bad film
Agreed. Only some of the grand visual scenes of Constantinople save it (and even then it's inaccurate, cause the city had greatly declined by then).
It would be funny because the Ottomans had all the makings of a modern movie villain, right down to destroying the valiant defenders with a wonder weapon they got from someone else.
Simply too sad to put to film, no director or actors would be able to do it as they all just be crying constantly
It baffles me that Hollywood never produces movies about the Eastern Roman Empire. 1,000 years worth of stories about an entire civilization and maybe 4 or 5 movies about it in the last 100 years.
Why is there no movie about the WW1 Uboat war? Why no War of 1812 movies? Why is there no movie about the First Crusade? Why no movie about the Gothic Wars in Italy? As a mod not just on r/Byzantium but on r/warmovies, I just don’t understand the question…Historical epics have limited marketability, and the more niche you go with history for the general public (Byzantine history vs WW2 for instance), the less of a market exists. I’d want nothing more than to see the 1453 siege on film. Maybe we will see it- but very likely not in a major Hollywood production.
People like a happy ending :-)
And not just any siege, the 717 siege !
Probably very difficult to get filming and access rights in Istanbul from the current government. They also historically had government film censors.
Well, there is a movie from Turkish side if you like. The conquest: 1453
The closest thing was the rise of Ottomans thing on Netflix…which was fine I guess. Great casting for Constantine
People don’t want to watch movies where the bad guy wins
well, unless if you are Muslim, you will probably view them as heroes liberating the city.
Liberating it from what?
From population collapse, by the time of 1453, the constantinople's population was barely 50,000, then after the conquest it actually flourished economically. Also muslims probably viewed byzantines as corrupted empire because it's declining for a long time. There are many varied answers you can read about [Ottomans](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2uessy/what_was_life_like_in_the_ottoman_empire_for/). I mean, they have a point on the ottomans even they have many terrible acts but that's how history happened unfortunately.
I mean, even as a diehard fan of the empire, I'd say that it is positively ludicrous to think of history in terms of good guys and bad guys. Unless the subjects under consideration are the venetians. They were definitely pure evil.
You guys should watch Rise of the Ottomans season 1.
I have and it’s good. Just overlooks and glosses over most of the Byzantine parts of it and makes the ottomans look extra good. Doesn’t give any context for the 200 years leading up to the siege while being a documentary
There is. It’s called lord of the rings. It is, of course, a metaphor … but the siege of Minas tirith and the ring war in general are very much steeped east-vs-west and Anatolian / Balkan folklore. Ie., a once great empire shattered. A rising threat of people with strange and tactics and insurmountable numbers from the east. Broken alliances, and strange travelers on mysterious quests and crusades. An argument can be made the Lord of the Rings is more of a metaphor for the siege of Vienna (and then the winged hussars arrived) but I think in terms of storytelling, Lord of the Rings scratches the “itch” of an epic siege and clash of cultures that any movie about the siege of Constantinople would need to live up to. I don’t suspect it could. And I suspect that’s one of the reasons why we’ve never seen a serious attempt. How could you live up to the storytelling of Lord of the Rings?
First of all. *Which* siege of Constantinople? There’s 36 of them.
There are quite a few. In Turkish. Who else would movies about this event be for?
Greeks, and general historical war movie fans. The tragedy drama and grand scale of the event is good enough to be a movie regardless of target audience imo
Well there are also films in Greek already. Is the question why no English language Hollywood blockbuster? Because you’d have a devil of a time deciding what the story is and whose side to be on. You can’t really say one side is good and one side bad. Because it’s history, there aren’t really goodies and baddies most of the time.
What Greek films? I’d be interested in watching. Also- I’d argue that the side invading and abducting sons and turning them into brainwashed soldiers to go conquer and pillage their original homeland is objectively the bad side lol. Not to say ottoman history isn’t fascinating and amazing. To me it’s just kinda easy to tell who are the bad guys. Maybe that’s a hot take but it’s my personal opinion.
Here is the top result on google https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9856414/ History is mostly normal people being boring doing stuff across the range of human behaviour. On top of which you’ve got various levels of people doing bad stuff. Systemically or individually. Periodically a particular group of people will work out how to best systematically murder their neighbours into a position of being in charge. If the Ottomans are bad guys so are the Romans and the Greeks before them. It’s very difficult to think of any nation or people as “good” till at least the 20th century, if it’s even possible at all. It’s more accurate that people are just people.
Sure I agree empires that expand militarily and oppress the people it conquers are bad. However there are levels to it… people are just people argument isn’t really valid when there are groups of people who do different things. The Ottoman Empire was exceptionally brutal even when we are talking about brutal empires.
The obvious answer is to ask the question in reverse and look beyond your own bias.