The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies by Marios Philippides & Walter K. Hanak

Author:Marios Philippides & Walter K. Hanak [Philippides, Marios]
Language: eng
Format: azw3
ISBN: 9781317016083
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Published: 2017-05-02T04:00:00+00:00

Alvise Diedo acted as an intermediary, so that my late master, Lord Constantine, who was then the despot of the Morea, would take as his wife the daughter of the duke [doge] with a handsome dowry. My master agreed to this betrothal, not so much because of the dowry, but because his territories would be joined to those of Venice. I advised him to agree more forcefully than the others…. Once Constantine had become emperor and had come to the City, this marriage was out of the question. What nobleman or noblewoman would ever receive the daughter of a Venetian – even though he might be the glorious duke [doge] – as queen and lady for more than a short time? Who would accept his other sons-in-law as the emperor’s sons-in-law, and his sons as the brothers-in-law of the emperor? After he insisted on the marriage, this man was rejected and became our enemy.

One simply does not know what to make of this passage. How accurate is Sphrantzes on this delicate matter? Had there been a “betrothal” between the daughter of Francesco Foscari and the despot of the Morea? Was one of the doge’s daughters spurned by the Greeks or can this tale be reasonably attributed to Sphrantzes’ bitterness, if not to his malice? There exists no other piece of evidence to support Constantine’s loyal friend on this point. Accordingly, modern scholars have refused to take this passage seriously. Sphrantzes, it is generally believed, was simply carried away by grief over the failure of Venice to relieve the besieged capital of Constantine at the time. As he further wished to absolve his friend and emperor of all responsibility for the fall of Constantinople, he isolated his convenient scapegoat in the person of the doge, who, in his biased view, procrastinated and actually did little to prevent the disaster.28 Accordingly, he assigned a dark personal motive to the ruler of Venice. Yet there must be a slight nucleus of truth to his tale/motif of “the doge’s spurned daughter.” After all, Sphrantzes does mention the role of Alvise Diedo, a well-known Venetian active in the affairs of the Levant, who was among the valiant defenders of Constantinople in 1453. Diedo escaped during the sack, reached Venice, and presented the official account of the events of the siege and fall of the Greek capital to the Venetian authorities and to a stunned audience of officials and citizens, as we have seen.29 Sphrantzes knew of his valor and would not have included him in an obvious falsehood and in a forged tale.

After all factors are considered, perhaps a small part of this tale may be true. It is plausible that the Greek court in Mistra considered one of the doge’s daughters and that Diedo was approached and was asked to give his opinion on this matter. He may have personally welcomed such a match, since he had spent a great deal of time in the Levant. The fact is that Francesco Foscari did have a marriageable daughter of age at that time.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.