An evil, doomed day, a day which no one would want to mention because it is the reminder of the sad event of the fall, the destruction.
The information obtained about the fall of Constantinople from chroniclers who were eyewitnesses of the siege (Georgios Frantzis, the bishop Leonard of Chios, the cardinal Isidoros, the Venetian Niccolo Barbaro, the Florentine Jacobus Tetardi, the Serbian-born janissary Mihails Konstantinovics, and the Italian Puskoulos) and important historians of that time, who were not present at the siege and fall of the City but wrote about it, (Michael Doukas, Nikolaos Chalkokondylis, Kritoboulos, Georgi Dolphin, the unknown author of the Barbarian Code as well as the famous "Lament of Constantinople", the creator of which we do not know) are often contradictory and they result in confusion when it comes to some historical facts.
It is a wide known fact that the citizens of Constantinople were already divided into two factions ready to destroy each other (unionists - anti-unionists). The Westerners, following instructions from the Pope, did not help and kept blaming the Byzantines for not accepting the "union" of the two Churches. The anti-unionists were accused of handing over Constantinople to Muhammad.
After all, the defenders of the City were few, the ceaseless attacks of the Turkish - who had thousands of men and were capable of replacing those who got lost in battle- were wearing them down. The walls of the City were more than 1,000 years old and the ammunitions available to the Byzantines compared to those of the Turkish were primitive.
Therefore, the fall of the City seemed to be inevitable. The downfall which led to its takeover by the Latins in 1204 had predetermined its future. Eventually and due to the fact that the internal rivalries had grown stronger than the outside enemy Muhammad gave the deathblow in 1453.....
