Mehmed II

When the Ottoman ruler Mehmed II captured Constantinople in 1453, this legitimized his assumption of the universalistic title Kayser-i Rum—Emperor of the Roman Empire. It was more than window-dressing to appease the Christian majority among his subjects. The Roman notion of the world as empire—a political unity under a single ruler and, since the 4th Century CE, a single god—was a powerful political ideal that was deeply ingrained in popular belief and had become associated with the possession of Constantinople, the Imperial City. Thus the capture of the ‘Red Apple’ enabled the Ottoman dynasty to assume imperial pretensions, in defiance of the Mamluk rulers of Egypt and the Holy Roman Emperor in the West. This in turn allowed Mehmed’s successors to appropriate also the equally universalistic titles of padishah (Great King) and khalifa (Caliph, ruler of Islam). To strengthen his claims to world dominion—as well as, perhaps, for personal reasons—Mehmed moreover chose Alexander the Great for a role model.

This is the first-ever English translation of a book written in Latin in 1504 by Marinus Barletius (Marin Barleti), an Albanian who took part in the defense of Scutari and later emigrated to Venice became a Catholic priest. FROM THE BACK COVER: The year is 1478. Europe is under attack. Ten years after the death of their champion, Scanderbeg, the Albanians and Venetians continue to resist the Ottoman Turks, defending their fatherland and buying time for Western Europe to prepare for the coming onslaught. History has long overlooked the heroic contribution of the Albanians to slowing the Ottoman armies intent on conquering all of Europe. Marin Barleti gives the world a thrilling firsthand account of heroism in the face of conquest—simple men and women fighting for their families, fields, and faith. Watch from the castle’s parapets and see Turkish hordes whitewashing the fields below with their tents and squadrons. Learn how janissaries were trained and how new military cannons were ushered into the history of warfare. See how the outnumbered citizens foiled the invaders’ furious attacks. Even though the sultan is defeated and forced to retreat, he maintains the siege of Shkodra until the Venetian Senate cedes it to him as an ultimatum for peace. The crestfallen citizens of Shkodra choose emigration over subjugation, sailing across the Adriatic to safe harbor in Venice. With the Albanian coastline under his control, the sultan can finally set his attention upon Western Europe.

This chapter refines the argument for the publication of Bessarion’s Orations by the Sorbonne press in 1471 constituting an act of propaganda on behalf of a crusade. First, it views the initiation for the printing as resting with a triumvirate: Bessarion himself, the Paris academic and publisher Guillaume Fichet, and the Cardinal of Burgundy, Jean Rolin. All three men had an interest in promoting a crusade, and the argument highlights Rolin’s association with Burgundian aspirations. Second, the chapter establishes the links between Fichet’s publication and the great diet of Regensburg. The context here was not just the first Ottoman raids into Imperial territory, but the hopes of Bessarion’s impressive circle of friends that the Greek cardinal might be elected as successor to Pope Paul II.

The Muslim conquest of Constantinople was seen in various apocalyptic traditions as one of the portents of the end. An Ottoman mystic, Ahmed Bî-cân, gave voice to these apocalyptic fears and expectations soon after the Ottoman conquest in 1453 CE. His apocalyptic narrative, expressed in the Turkish vernacular, placed the Ottoman enterprise within the final tribulations and hailed the sultan, Mehmed II, as an apocalyptic warrior. This endorsement heralded the emergence of a new imperial ideology in the sixteenth century: Ottoman history became an important component of universal history, while Ottoman sultans were attributed cosmic responsibilities and messianic abilities.

In 1453 the Ottoman Sultan conquered Constantinople, and transformed the Byzantine capital into the Ottoman city of Istanbul. He ended 1200 years of Christian hegemony, and symbolically appropriated Hagia Sophia for Islam. But what happened to the second most important church of the Byzantine city, the church of the Holy Apostles, which was not only an architectural masterpiece – the model for San Marco in Venice – but the pantheon of the Byzantine Emperors? It has long been a controversy, but recent research has revealed how Mehmed’s response was more complex and intriguing than imagined. It was a response not only to a building, but to Byzantium’s imperial past.

Bugüne kadar Ulubatlı Hasan hakkında sancağı rastgele eline alıp burca dikmeyi başarmış çok genç bir yeniçeri olduğu yönünde hayal ürünü bir karakter kurgulanmış; bu da onun şimdiye dek açıkça tespit edilemeyen gerçek statüsünü tamamen gölgede bırakmıştır. Halbuki İstanbul kara surlarının en stratejik noktası olan Hagios Romanos (Topkapı) burcuna çıkıp sancak dikmek gibi çok zor bir görevi başarmak ancak emektar ve yüksek tecrübe sahibi bir sancaktarın işi olabilirdi. O, “Alemdar”lığının yanı sıra bu dönemde uzun bir süre “Sekbanbaşı”lık da yapmıştır.

Ulubatlı Hasan’ın tarihî yarımadanın merkezinde bulunan meçhul kabri, birkaç ay önce bölgede yaptığımız geniş çaplı bir araştırma sonucu ortaya çıkmıştır.

The present dissertation was written to explain the conquest of the city of Belgrade by the Ottoman Empire in the events of Istanbul in 1453, 1456 and Belgrade in 1521. In particular, the answer to the question of why the success achieved in Istanbul in 1453 could not be implemented in Belgrade will be sought. In 1456, Sultan II. After the failed Siege of Belgrade carried out by Mehmed, Ottoman-Serbia-Hungary relations will be examined. However, as a result of the Ottoman rule in the Balkans, it will be examined under what conditions he was able to conquer Belgrade, which he besieged for the third time in 1521. In this way, the inaccuracy of examining the sieges of the Ottoman Empire in the mentioned dates with only military dimensions will be debated.

The book attempts to present –for the first time in the international bibliography– a detailed description of the historical life of Abydos (Άβυδος) of Hellespont (Ελλήσποντος, Δαρδανέλλια); the latter was an important ancient and medieval Greek city, situated on the Asiatic shore of Dardanelles, at the once narrowest part of the local Straits (usually named "Stenon of Abydos") and in the surrounding area of the promontory of Nara (an Ottoman and modern Turkish naval base, where free access is prohibited). The monograph also detects the  relations between Abydos and other known settlements in the wider region of northwestern Asia Minor (Troad, Hellespont, Mysia, Hellespontine Phrygia).

Αbydos was founded predominantly as a colony of Miletus (ca. 680-650 BC) and had a continuous historical life that lasted about 2.000 years (mid. 7th c. BC - early 14th c. AD). The prosperous ancient city minted various coins between 6th c. BC - 3rd c. AD. Its lively port was used for centuries as a key point for the passage from Europe to Asia and the cruise from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea (and vice versa) as well as a major customs station ("telonion Abydou" during the Roman imperial years, "demosion teloneion" or "kommerkion" or "dekateuterion Abydou" during the medieval period of the city). Byzantine Abydos was also an important administrative center, a military and naval base and an ecclesiastical seat (bishopric and later metropolis).

However, the long and turbulent history of Abydos and its region is virtually unknown in modern years, despite the fact that the city's reputation was particularly widespread during ancient and medieval times in the Mediterranean world. Moreover, for many reasons noted in the book, the settlement does not exist archaeologically in the last two centuries. In short, Abydos constitutes a very interesting case of a virtually lost city during the modern times.

For various reasons, also described in the book, the importance of Abydos had declined during the 13th c. AD and the city was finally abandoned by its population in the early 14th c. AD., mainly because of the Turkish threat in the area. From mid. 15th c. AD the new city of Çanakkale was established gradually (initially named as Kale-i Sultaniye) 5-6 km to the south of Abydos. The ruins of the abandoned urban area of ​​the latter have been systematically pillaged -mainly for construction and other purposes- between the 14th - early 19th c. AD.

For the reconstruction of  the long historical life of Abydos (mid. 7th c. BC - early 14th c. AD) and an in-depth analysis of its numerous and largely unknown institutions, the study relies though on the information providing by the written (ancient and medieval) texts but also on the scarce and dispersed epigraphic and the much richer numismatic (the city minted coins between 6th c. BC - 3rd c. AD) and sigillographic data and other archaeological findings regarding (or deriving from) the city. It also takes into account all the contemporary related publications.

[VANIAS publications,  Thessaloniki 2017,  752 pages,  ISBN: 978-960-288-342-6,  text in Greek language with an English summary]

The conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 is seen by many as a turning point in world history. The battle marks the end of the Byzantine Empire, which lasted for over a thousand years in the eastern Mediterranean after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire had been weakened over the centuries, particularly after the conquest of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade. The city was later re-conquered in 1261, but the Byzantine Empire never regained the military power it once had. By 1453 the population of the city was a fraction of its former size. Finally, in 1453, with the Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaeologus controlling only the city of Constantinople and some territory in southern Greece, and the Ottoman Turks controlling the land surrounding the city on both sides of the Bosporus, the city was conquered by Mehmed II, Sultan of the Ottoman Turks. After the conquest a number of Greek scholars fled to the west or joined the Ottoman Sultans at court, influencing both cultures. However it is untrue that scholars fleeing at this point started the Italian Renaissance because there were Greek scholars in Italy long before the fall of Constantinople; but more scholars did come afterward. The focus of this paper will be on the events of the siege itself, which marks a turning point in military strategy when cannons became important in siege craft by helping to defeat the greatest walled city in the world. I will also talk about the changes that Mehmed II introduced to Constantinople in the aftermath of the siege in its conversion from Byzantine to Ottoman capital city.

Sultan Mehmed’in, bir imparatorluk ideolojisi doğrultusunda bazı hazırlıklar yaptığı gerçektir. Ancak, projenin kilit taşı İstanbul’un fethidir. Bunu gerçekleştirmek adına, hem önündeki engelleri kaldırdı veya geçici çözümlerle erteledi, hem de liderliğinin ve devlet adamlığının bir süre olgunlaşmasını bekledi. İstanbul’un fethi sorası kendisini hem Roma hem Anadolu imparatoru olarak görüyordu. Fetih öncesi 1446’da Georgios Trapezuntios Fâtih’e hitaben, “Kimse şüphe etmez ki sen Romalılar imparatorusun. İmparatorluk merkezini hukuken elinde tutan kimse imparatordur ve Roma İmparatorluğu’nun merkezi de İstanbul’dur”  demiştir. Bizans’ın haraç vermesi Osmanlı’ya tabi olduğuna bir işaret olsa da, burada da bahsedildiği gibi sadece hukuki statüde iddia edilebilir ancak fiili olarak durum farklıdır. II. Mehmed Bizans üzerindeki hakimiyetinin sorgulanmasını ortadan kaldıracak hamleyi yaparak İstanbul’u kuşattı. İstanbul’un fethi, imparatorluk projesinin temeli idi ama imparatorluğunu pekiştirecek adımlar da atmalıydı. İstanbul’un fethi ve sonrası ele alınarak, kilit taşı olan İstanbul’un fethini sağlamlaştıran, yapı taşları açıklanacaktır.

İstanbul’un fethinde surlara ilk sancağı dikenin Ulubatlı Hasan olup-olmadığı tartışmalarının uzun zamandır gündemi meşgul ettiği ve özellikle basın-yayın organları aracılığıyla bu konunun her yıl aynı ifâdelerle gündeme getirildiği herkesçe bilinmektedir. Bu konuda ortaya atılan iddialar, fethin simgesi ve en büyük şehidi konumundaki Hasan'ı tarihte hiç yaşamamış efsanevî bir kişi olma noktasına kadar getirmiştir.

Bu makalede iddia edilenin aksine Ulubatlı Hasan'ın gerçekten yaşadığı, meçhul kabir ve mescidinin tarihî yarımadanın merkezinde, Fatih Horhor'da yer aldığı ve bulunduğu mahallenin uzun yıllar "Alemdar Baba Hasan" ismiyle tanındığı; ayrıca onun 828/1425 tarihli vakfiyesinde "İslâm sancağının dikicisi" unvânıyla anıldığı, vakıf köyünün Ulubat Gölü'nün birkaç km. doğusunda yer aldığı ve sancaktarlıktan sonra bir süre sekbanbaşılık da yaptığı tarihî kanıtlar ışığında ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır.

Le Royaume de Hongrie et la prise de Constantinople. Croisade et union ecclésiastique en 1453, in : Extincta est lucerna orbis. John Hunyadi and his Time, éd. Ana Dumitran et al., Cluj-Napoca, 2009, p. 465-490.

I. Hunyadi entre le basileus des Rhomées et l’empereur des Romains;
II. La prise de Constantinople et ses premières conséquences;
III. L’Union ecclésiastique dans le Royaume de Hongrie;
IV. L’apothéose

Une nouvelle interprétation du siège de Constantinople de 1453 est ici proposée. Le pape Nicolas V avait mis en œuvre, dans la situation difficile de Constantinople après 1452, le plan le plus efficace pour aider un Empire qui, en situation d’extrémité, reconnut enfin l’Union de Florence. Ce plan se fondait sur la capacité de résistance de la capitale et consistait dans le placement à proximité de Constantinople d’une force combinée composée d’une flotte aragonaise basée à Lemnos et d’une armée hongroise basée à Messembria, censées pouvoir intervenir rapidement en cas d’urgence. Le génie militaire de Mehmed II sut néanmoins déjouer ce plan en une véritable course contre la montre, occupant la ville en seulement huit semaines, ne laissant pas le temps nécessaire à la concentration des forces de ses adversaires, notamment du capitaine général de la Hongrie, Jean Hunyadi. Si la prise de Constantinople n’avait donc rien de fatal, cela restitue sa véritable dimension aux mesures prises pour sa défense, ainsi que la dimension réelle de l’exploit militaire du Conquérant. Nous sommes ici peut-être à l'aube de la «révolution militaire» moderne, si âprement débattue dans l’historiographie.

Mullā Khusraw who is an important Ottoman scholar who held several official positions such as Mudarris, qadi, qadi-askar, mufti and sheikh al-islam.
He has several valuable works in many disciplines of the Islamic thought, especially his al-Durar wa-al-Gurar that is a very important text in the field of Islamic jurisprudence and a handbook of Muslim jurists and judges in the Ottoman Empire.
This symposium aims to discuss Mullā Khusraw from his different aspects with contributions of eminent scholars from different countries.
This symposium, in fact, is a third link of a symposium series the first two of which was held in Bursa again on Molla Fanari on 4-6 December 2009, and on Khojazāda on 22-24 October 2010.
The online program book can be downloaded via the link below.
http://ilahiyat.uludag.edu.tr/images/stories/faaliyetler/Molla_Husrev.pdf

After meticulously studying historical evidence and information from diverse sources about the settlement and evolution of the town of Preveza, the following conclusions are drawn: The Ottomans seized the castle of Riniassa before the end of July 1463 during the reign of Mehmet II, the Conqueror. A small settlement by the port of Vathy, two kilometres north of modern Preveza, which existed at that time and belonged administratively to the region of Riniassa, was probably fortified with two towers in 1465. A new castle was erected in 1478 at the entrance of the gulf of Arta, and eventually became known as the Castle of Bouka (from Italian bocca, meaning mouth or entrance to the gulf). The Ottomans improved its fortification in 1486-1487, 1495, 1530, 1553, and the Venetians did so too in 1684 after they seized the castle. In August 1701, the Venetians blew up the castle before they handed it over to the Ottomans, as stipulated by the terms of the Treaty of Karlowitz. In 1702, the Ottomans erected a new fort half a mile to the north of the destroyed Bouka castle, which resulted in the relocation of the small town of Preveza closer to the new stronghold.
Several manuscripts and prints have illustrated Bouka castle. The first known depiction on a map appears on the 1521 manuscript map of Pirî Reis (Fig. 2), followed by prints of Francesco Genesio in 1538 (Fig. 3), and Antonio Salamanca c.1540 (Fig. 4). Three more manuscript illustrations –those of Iacopo Inghirami in 1605 (Fig. 6), an unknown Venetian in 1684 (Fig. 9), and Giovanni Leonardo Mauro in 1685 (Fig. 10)– are reviewed and compari-sons are made. A new drawing of the castle is made (Fig. 11), based on that of Mauro, and it is overlaid on a modern satellite image of Preveza (Fig. 19) to indicate the exact location of the castle of Bouka. The castle’s foundations surely remain just beneath the topsoil and could be easily located by small excavations.

By focusing on the known details of Laonikos Chalkokondyles' biography , on his relation to Byzantine historiographical tradition, by comparing his historical work to that of contemporary intellectuals living under the Ottomans as well as those in the west, examining his portrayal of Mehmed II, his adoption of a Herodotean model, the revival of Herodotus in the Renaissance more generally , and the reception of the ᾿ Aπόδειξις in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, I argue that Laonikos was writing for an elite circle of Byzantine émigrés and other intellectuals with access to classical Greek in the west, rather than for the post-Byzantine intellectuals associated with the Ottoman court.

This dissertation discusses the Rum empire ideology in the first half of the 15th century and its impact on Mehmed II’s imperial policy by focusing on the epic and history dealing texts, and evaluates the ghazi and empire ideologies together. It seems that the two ideologies were combined, but after the conquest of Constantinople, discussions between them occurs. Nevertheless, Mehmed’s goal of conquering the Eastern Roman capital and becoming a Rum Kaiser had roots in early Ottoman history and literature. To find out a better understanding, a psychological perspective, collective unconsciousness theory, is used. This theory was helpful to understand the general unconscious thought in the first half of the 15th century.

This paper has been accepted for publication in the proceedings of the 51st Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies convened at the University of Edinburgh in 2018 as part of a dedicated and fully peer-reviewed series under the auspices of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies (byzantium.ac.uk). It was scheduled to be published in 2021.

La croisade en projets. Plans présentés au Grand Quartier Général de la croisade, le Collège des cardinaux, in : J. Paviot (dir.), Les projets de croisade. Géostratégie et diplomatie européenne du XIVe au XVIIe siècle, PUM, Toulouse, 2014 [série Croisades tardives, 1], p. 247-286.

Discussion d’un bouquet de projets anti-ottomans de la deuxième moitié du XVe siècle : de Jean de Torcello (1440), de Lampo Birago (1454) et d’un anonyme du temps du pontificat de Paul II (1464). Nous montrons que le point commun de tous ces projets est d’avoir appartenu à la suite proche du cardinal Bessarion. Les similitudes générales s’expliquent ainsi par leur source commune d’inspiration.  Il est rappelé que Bessarion était depuis Eugène IV membre de la commission cardinalice responsable de l’organisation de la croisade, qui assura la transmission de ce programme à tous les pontifes qui lui ont succédé. Comme le rappelle une déclaration remarquable du cardinal Francesco Piccolomini (le futur Pie III) au Reichstag de Ratisbonne après le décès de Paul II (1471), la croisade était en réalité le fait du collège cardinalice, et le pape ne pouvait que suivre cette politique. Les projets analysés sont donc loin d’être un simple exercice littéraire, puisqu’ils étaient élaborés au sein de (ou au bénéfice de) l’institution spécialement créée pour animer la croisade.

Bu çalışmada, Şehzade Mehmed'te İstanbul’u fethetme düşüncesinin oluşmasında önemli rol oynayan ve İstanbul'un fethine bizzat katılan hocaları hakkında bilgi verilmiştir. Giriş bölümüyle üç bölümden oluşan çalışmanın giriş bölümünde, Sultan Murad tarafından gerçekleştirilen siyasi ve kültürel faaliyetlere kısaca değinilmiştir. Ayrıca Sultan II. Murad'ın bu faaliyetleri sonucu siyasi ve kültürel alandaki gelişmelerin İstanbul'un fethine giden süreci başlattığı ortaya konulmuştur. Birinci bölümde, Sultan II. Mehmed’in doğumundan İstanbul’un fethine kadarki (1432-1453) faaliyetleri hakkında bilgi verilmiştir. İkinci bölümde, İstanbul’un fethinde büyük katkıları olan Molla Gürani, Molla Hüsrev ve Şeyh Akşemseddin’in hayatları biyografik olarak ele alınmıştır. Fakat ikinci bölümde özellikle bu üç hocanın İstanbul'un fethine ve fatihe olan katkıları vurgulanmıştır. (In this study was given information about Sehzade Mehmed's hodjas who played an important role in the conception of conquering Istanbul and who personally participated in the conquest of Istanbul. At the entrance of the study which consists of the introduction and two parts, the political and cultural activities carried out by Sultan Murad II are briefly mentioned. In addition, it was revealed that the developments in the political and cultural fields as a result of these activities of Sultan Murad II started the process of conquest of Istanbul. In the first part, from Sultan Mehmet II’s born to the conquest of Istanbul (1432-1453) was given information about him the activities. In second part, The lives of Molla Gürani, Molla Hüsrev and Seyh Aksemseddin, who have made great contributions in the conquest of İstanbul, are considered as biographical. But especially in the second part, the contributions of these three hodja to the conquest and to conqueror of Istanbul were emphasized.)

Akşemseddin’in (ö. 863/1459) önde gelen halifelerinden Abdurrahim Karahisârî Afyonkarahisarlı olup henüz Beypazarı’nda iken intisap ettiği şeyhinin Edirne, İstanbul, İznik ve Göynük’te iken uzun süre yanında bulunmuştur. Karahisârî, Bayramiyye’nin Akşemseddin’le açılan ve İbrâhim Tennûrî (ö. 887/1482), Şeyh Yavsî (ö. 920/1514) ve İlyas Saruhânî (ö. 967/1559-60) gibi sûfîler tarafından devam ettirilen kolu olan Şemsiyye’yi 15. yüzyılda Afyonkarahisar’da temsil etmiş telif sahibi bir sûfîdir. Bûsîrî’nin (ö. 695/1296 [?]) Hz. Peygamber’i medh için kaleme aldığı kasidesinin manzum tercümesi Tercüme-i Kasîde-i Bürde, Necmeddîn-i Kübrâ’nın (ö. 618/1221) mürîdlerinden Hâssî’nin (ö. 634/1237) halveti konu alan es-Selve fî şerâiti’l-halve adlı eserinin şerhli tercümesi Münyetü’l-ebrâr ve gunyetü’l-ahyâr, bazı tasavvufî esasları şiir diliyle ve sade bir Türkçe ile ele aldığı Vahdetnâme isimli mesnevîsi ve dönemin kıyamet tartışmaları bağlamında ele alınabilecek Risâle fî eşrâti’s-sâ‘a günümüze ulaştığı bilinen eserleridir.
İstanbul’un fethinde şeyhiyle bizzat bulunmuş olan Karahisârî kıyamet alametlerine dair Risâle fî eşrâti’s-sâ‘a adlı risalesini fetihten birkaç sene sonra kaleme almış ve rivayetler üzerinden Konstantiniyye’nin fethiyle kıyamet arasındaki ilişkiye dair bilgiler vermiştir. O dönemde sûfîlerin kıyamet hakkında risaleler yazdıkları, örneğin Yazıcıoğlu Mehmed’in (ö. 855/1451) meşhur Muhammediyye’sinde, kardeşi Ahmed Bîcân’ın (ö. 870/1466’dan sonra) Dürr-i Meknûn’unda ve Eşrefoğlu Rûmî’nin (ö. 874/1469-70 [?]) Müzekki’n-nüfûs’unda kıyamet alametlerine dair müstakil bahisler olduğu; bu teliflerden çok öncesinde, Bizans kaynaklarında da Konstantiniyye’ye dair kıyametle ilgili bazı efsanelerin olduğu bilinmektedir. Bu tebliğde öncelikle Karahisârî’nin Risâle fî eşrâti’s-sâ‘a’sı tanıtılacak, ardından o dönemde telif edilen bazı eserlerle karşılaştırılarak İstanbul’un fethinin sûfîlerce kıyametle nasıl ilişkilendirildiğine ve fethin nasıl algılandığına dair bir yorum denemesine ulaşılacaktır.

Mevcut çalışma, Fransa ve Osmanlı devletlerinin, merkezi bir yapıya ulaşabilmek adına, gerçekleştirdikleri ''sınırlı bir tarihsel süreç içindeki'' önemli hamlelerini incelemektedir. Araştırmada özellikle, Osmanlı Devletini bir imparatorluk haline getiren II. Mehmed ve Fransa'yı mutlak-merkezi bir devlet haline getiren XIV. Louis'in faaliyetlerini incelenecek ve tartışılacaktır. Bu çalışmanın içinde ayrıca, mutlak otoritelerini sağlamaya çalışan hükümdarların, merkezileşme hamlelerini dayandırdıkları meşruiyet şekilleri de irdelenmiştir. Öte yandan Osmanlı Devletinde çağdaşı Avrupalı devletlere nazaran ''erken'' bir dönemde gözlemlenebilen mutlak-otoriter yapının, Avrupa'da mutlaki rejimlerin sivrildiği dönemde (XVII. yüzyıl) nasıl değişimler geçirdiği de ele alınacaktır.

Natalie Zemon Davis beschouwt films die als hun centrale plot gedocumenteerde gebeurtenissen hebben, zoals het leven van een historisch figuur of bepaalde historische gebeurtenissen zoals oorlogen of revoluties, als historische films. De Turkse film Fetih 1453 (2012, regie Faruk Aksoy) kan aan de hand hiervan beschouwd worden als een historische film. In het geval van een historische film zoals Fetih is het onvermijdelijk dat er historische onjuistheden in de film zitten, omdat een historische film gebruik maakt van fictie om het verhaal te vertellen. Wat echter belangrijker is, is of een historische film authentiek overkomt. Zoals Davis aangeeft kan daarvoor gekeken worden naar of de rekwisieten kloppen, of de film de ziel van het verleden goed weergeeft en of de vreemdheid van het verleden goed naar voren wordt gebracht. Dit komt overeen met wat van een historicus verwacht mag worden als het gaat om het weergeven van het verleden. Op basis van een culturele en historische filmanalyse kan echter worden geconcludeerd dat zaken als schoonheid, esthetiek en beleving in Fetih centraler staan dan de historische waarheid. De film is daarmee eerder esthetisch verantwoord dan historisch verantwoord. Als het gaat om de daarin gepresenteerde ziel van het verleden dan moet deze film dus niet op alle vlakken even serieus genomen worden. Fetih geeft wel een beeld van 1453, maar het is geen nieuw perspectief of een grotendeels historisch verantwoorde visie op het verleden. De waarde van deze film als een vorm van geschiedschrijving is daarom niet erg hoog.