Proclamation Request Form Name Of Organization Person: Fill & Download for Free

Yes, China claims sovereignty over the South China Sea.The South China Sea is the territory of China.China is the earliest country to discover and name the Nansha Islands, and the earliest and continued to exercise sovereign jurisdiction over the Nansha Islands. During the Second World War, Japan launched a war of aggression against China and occupied most of China. The Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other international documents clearly provide for the return of Chinese territory stolen by Japan to China, which naturally includes the Nansha Islands.In December 1946, the Chinese government assigned senior officials to the Nansha Islands for reception, held a reception ceremony on the island, and sent troops to the station. In 1952, the Japanese government formally stated that it would "give up all rights, names, and requirements for Taiwan, the Penghu Islands, the Nansha Islands, and the Xisha Islands" and officially return the Nansha Islands to China. China is the victorious country of World War II and one of the five permanent members of the United Nations. The islands of the South China Sea are also the victorious products of World War II. China enjoys all its sovereignty. Because the Chinese as a fascist ally have contributed to the world, and have contained more than 1.5 million troops from Japan to the Soviet Union and from the south to the Pacific. And the Chinese army is responsible for the surrender of the Japanese army in the area north of the 17th latitude north of Vietnam. In other words, the South China Sea was exchanged for blood by the Chinese.After a long period of time after the war, there was no so-called South China Sea problem. No country in the area around the South China Sea has raised any objections to China's exercise of sovereignty in the Nansha Islands and its adjacent waters. Vietnam clearly recognized China ’s territorial sovereignty over the Nansha Islands before 1975. Before the 1970s, countries such as the Philippines and Malaysia did not have any legal documents or leaders ’speeches mentioning that their territories include the Nansha Islands. The Treaty of Paris signed between the United States and Spain in 1898 and the Washington Treaty signed in 1900 clearly stipulated the territorial scope of the Philippines, but did not include the Nansha Islands. The Philippine Constitution of 1953 and the Philippine-American Military Alliance Treaty of 1951 also confirmed this, and only in December 1978 did Macia mark some of the islands, reefs and sea areas of the Nansha Islands on its continental shelf map. Within Malaysia.The resolutions of many governments and international conferences also recognize the Nansha Islands as Chinese territory. For example, Resolution 24, adopted by the ICAO Pacific Regional Aviation Conference held in Manila in 1955, requested the Taiwanese authorities of China to strengthen meteorological observations in the Nansha Islands. None of the representatives raised objections or reservations. Maps published by many countries also indicate that the Nansha Islands belong to China. For example, Japan ’s 1952 “The Standard World Atlas” personally recommended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Okazaki, and the “New World Atlas” recommended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Taihei Masahiro in 1962, and the “World General Atlas” published by the Federal Republic of Germany in 1954. The "Atlas", the "Penguin World Atlas" published by the United Kingdom in 1956, and the "Larus World and Political and Economic Atlas" published by France in 1956 all clearly mark that the Nansha Islands belong to China. The world maps published in Vietnam in 1960 and 1972 and the textbooks published in 1974 recognized the Nansha Islands as Chinese territory. Since the twentieth century, many national authoritative encyclopedias, such as the "Wild Mac Encyclopedia" published by the United States in 1963, the "Encyclopedia of the Soviet Union" in 1973, and the "World Yearbook" published by the Japanese Kyodo News in 1979. Recognize that the Nansha Islands are Chinese territory.Since the 1970s, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and other countries have occupied part of the islands and reefs of the Nansha Islands by military means. They have carried out large-scale resource development activities in the waters near the Nansha Islands and made claims for sovereignty. In this regard, the Chinese government has repeatedly and solemnly stated that these acts are serious violations of China ’s territorial sovereignty and are illegal and invalid. The so-called legal basis of these countries is simply untenable.2. The historical basis for China ’s sovereignty over the Nansha IslandsChina is the earliest country discovered and named in history, the earliest development and management, and the earliest jurisdiction over the Nansha Islands.First, China first discovered and named the Nansha IslandsThe earliest discovery of the Chinese people on the islands of the South China Sea can be traced back to the Han Dynasty. The "Foreign Objects" of Yang Fu in the Eastern Han Dynasty has a record of "Rising Hai Qitou, shallow water and many magnets". The "Zhanghai" here refers to the Chinese people's name for the South China Sea at that time, and "Qitou" refers to the islands, reefs, sands, and beaches of the South China Sea islands, including the Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands. "The Legend of Funan" written by General Kangtai of the Three Kingdoms Soochow not only mentioned the Nansha Islands, but also described its shape: "In the rising sea, to the Coral Continent, there are Pangu at the bottom of the continent, and corals grow on it." During the Tang and Song Dynasties, many history Geographical works successively named Xisha and Nansha Islands as "Jiuruluozhou", "Shitang", "Changsha", "Qianli Shitang", "Qianli Changsha", "Wanli Shitang", "Wanli Changsha" and so on. In the Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties, there were hundreds of books describing the islands of the South China Sea under the names of "Shitang" and "Changsha". In the Yuan Dynasty, the geographical location of the islands in the South China Sea was more detailed. Wang Dayuan's "Island of Zhiyi" has "Wangli Shitang, born from Chaozhou, which is like a long snake, traversing the sea ... The original veins. The calendar can be tested. One vein to Java, one vein It is boring to Bo Ni and Guli, and to the western Kunya. " "Wanli Shitang" refers to the islands of the South China Sea, including Nansha today. Shitang, Changsha, and Shitang are marked in the "Map of the Capitals of the Ming Dynasty in the Ming Dynasty" in the Ming Dynasty. From the position plotted in the picture, the latter stone pond is the present Nansha Islands. In the Qing Dynasty, "Genglu Book" recorded the specific location of the names of the islands, reefs, beaches and continents of the Nansha Islands used by the fishermen of Hainan Island in China. Among them, 73 names in Nansha.2. China's earliest development and management of Nansha IslandsThe Chinese people went to the Nansha Islands to develop fishery production at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty. As early as the Ming Dynasty, fishermen from Haikou Port, Puqian Port and Qinglan Port, and fishermen from Wenchang County went to Nansha Islands to catch sea cucumbers and other objects.The 1868 "China Sea Guide" records the activities of Chinese fishermen in the Nansha Islands. Zheng He Group reefs have "Hainan fishermen, who live by capturing sea cucumbers and shells. Each island has its own footprint, and there are people living in the reef for a long time. There are small boats sailing to the island. They carry rice grains and other necessities to exchange scallops with fishermen. The boat leaves Hainan in December or January every year, and returns when the first southwesterly wind rises. Fishermen from all parts of the Leizhou Peninsula go to the Nansha Islands for fishing. Among them, Wenchang and Qionghai have the most counties. Each year, there are more than a dozen to twenty fishing boats."Gengluluan" is another powerful proof of the development of the South China Sea islands by the Chinese people since the Ming and Qing Dynasties. It is a navigation guide for Chinese Hainan Island fishermen to carry out production activities in Xisha and Nansha Islands. It is a collective creation that has accumulated many people ’s practical experience in sailing. It was bred in the Ming Dynasty and has been continuously improved. It records the fishermen ’s experience from the Qinglan or Wenlan County of Hainan Island. The navigation course and voyage from Tanmen Port in Qionghai County to the islands and reefs of Xisha and Nansha Islands.Since the Republic of China, the historical facts of the development and management of the Nansha Islands by Chinese fishermen have been recorded in Chinese and foreign historical materials. Japan's Ogura Onosuke "Storm Island" records that in 1918, when his expedition team arrived on Beizi Island, he discovered three "Haikou people in Wenchang County". When Miyoshi and Matsuo visited Nansha in 1933, they saw that there were 2 Chinese in Beizi Island and 3 Chinese in Nanzi Island. Japan's "New South Islands Overview" records that Zhongye Island has fishermen "planted sweet potatoes", "in the past, the fishermen of the Republic of China lived on this island and cultivated coconuts, papayas, sweet potatoes and vegetables."3. China first exercised jurisdiction over the Nansha IslandsAs late as the Yuan Dynasty, the Nansha Islands have come under our jurisdiction. "Geography of Yuan History" and "Illustration of Territory of Yuan Dynasty" record that the territory of Yuan Dynasty includes Nansha Islands. Among them, "Yuan History" records that the Yuan Dynasty navy patrolled the Nansha Islands.The Ming Dynasty "Hainan Guard Commander Ching Chai Cemetery Chromium" records: "Guangdong is close to the sea, and all overseas countries are internal", "more than 10,000 military commanders, fifty giant ships", patrolling "tens of thousands of miles of Haidao". It shows that the Nansha Islands belong to the territory of the Ming Dynasty, and the Hainan Guard in the Ming Dynasty patrolled Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.In the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese government plotted the Nansha Islands on an authoritative map and exercised administrative jurisdiction over the Nansha Islands. "General Map of the World" in the "Straight Map of Qingzhi Provinces" in 1724, "General Map of the World" in the "Map of the Direct Provinces of the Qing Dynasty" in 1755, "Complete Map of the World in the Qing Dynasty in 1 Qing Dynasty" in 1767, 1810 Many maps such as "The Complete Map of Ten Thousand Years of Unification of the Qing Dynasty" and "The Complete Map of the Unification of the Whole World of the Qing Dynasty" in 1817 include the Nansha Islands in the Chinese territory. In 1932 and 1935, the Chinese Staff Headquarters, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Navy, the Ministry of Education, and the Mongolian-Tibetan Committee formed the Land and Water Map Review Committee, which specifically approved 132 island names in the South China Sea, belonging to Xisha and Zhongsha. , Dongsha and Nansha Islands jurisdiction.In 1933, France invaded nine islands such as Taiping and Zhongye in the Nansha Islands of China, and was immediately strongly opposed by the fishermen who lived and engaged in production activities in the Nansha Islands. The Chinese government also protested to the French government. In 1935, the Land and Water Map Review Committee of the Chinese Government compiled and printed the "Map of Islands in the South China Sea" detailing the specific names of the islands and reefs of the South China Sea islands including the Nansha Islands.In 1939, Japan invaded the South China Sea islands. In 1946, in accordance with the spirit of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, the Chinese Ministry of the Interior, together with the Admiralty and the Guangdong Provincial Government, appointed Xiao Ciyin and Mai Yunyu as Commissioners of the Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands, respectively, to take over the Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands, and Establish a sovereign monument on the island.In 1947, the Chinese Ministry of the Interior renamed all 159 islands and reefs and beaches in the South China Sea, including the Nansha Islands, and announced their implementation.In 1983, the Chinese Geographical Names Commission authorized the publication of the standard geographical names of the South China Sea islands including the Nansha Islands.In summary, a large number of detailed historical facts prove that the Nansha Islands were the earliest discovered, developed and operated by the Chinese people, and the Chinese government has already exercised jurisdiction and sovereignty over them. The Nansha Islands have been an inalienable part of Chinese territory since ancient times.3. The legal basis for China ’s sovereignty over the Nansha IslandsChina has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, which is fully based on legal principles.First, a large amount of detailed Chinese and foreign historical materials provided abundant evidence for the earliest discovery and naming of the Nansha Islands by the Chinese people. As early as the Han Dynasty two thousand years ago, the Chinese people discovered the Nansha Islands in long-term navigation and production practices. This is recorded in books such as "Foreign Objects" by Yang Fu in the Eastern Han Dynasty, "Foreign Objects in South Kingdom" by Wan Zhen in the Three Kingdoms, and "Fujian Biography" by General Kangtai of Soochow. These records are the Chinese people's understanding of the land on which they live, produce and operate, and they are of great significance in international law. From the perspective of the development of international law, the discovery of the South China Sea Islands by ancient China has proved that China enjoys indisputable territorial sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. The Nansha Islands are not "landless", but an integral part of Chinese territory. No other country has the right to change the legal status of the Nansha Islands in any name.2. The Chinese people ’s development and management of the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters and the actual jurisdiction of the Chinese government over the Nansha Islands have further strengthened China ’s sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. After discovering the Nansha Islands, the Chinese people have been engaged in fishing, planting and other production and operation activities in the Nansha Islands and the adjacent waters at the latest since Tang and Song Dynasties. The Fijian in the Jin Dynasty recorded in the "Guangzhou" Chinese fishermen fishing and coral-picking in the South China Sea. Since the Ming and Qing Dynasties, fishermen in Wenchang and Qionghai of Hainan Island often use the northeast trade winds to go south to the Nansha Islands and nearby waters every winter to capture aquatic products, and use the southwest trade winds to return north before the arrival of the second typhoon season. Chinese fishermen live in the Nansha Islands and engage in fishing, planting and other production activities, from spontaneous to organized, with the permission and support of the Chinese government. Even though the Nansha Islands were uninhabitable in ancient times, Chinese fishermen still lived in the Nansha Islands for many years. In the long history, the Chinese people have been producing and operating between China's Hainan Island, Guangdong Province and the Nansha Islands for many years, and have paid taxes to the Chinese government.3. The Chinese government's exercise of jurisdiction over the Nansha Islands is also manifested in a series of sustained and effective government actions. Since Tang Zhenyuan, China has included the Nansha Islands on the territory of China, and the Ming and Qing dynasties have further clarified this point. A large number of official Chinese documents, local chronicles, and official maps record the jurisdiction of the Chinese government over the Nansha Islands and include them in China's territorial scope. Until the beginning of this century, the Chinese government exercised peaceful jurisdiction over the Nansha Islands without controversy.Since the beginning of this century, successive Chinese governments have continuously maintained China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. In the 1930s, France had invaded the nine islands of the Nansha Islands. The Chinese government promptly conducted diplomatic negotiations and the Chinese fishermen carried out organized resistance. During the period of the Republic of China, the Chinese government adopted a series of measures to actively maintain sovereignty, such as issuing Chinese national flags to Chinese fishermen and fishing vessels operating in and around the Nansha Islands, organizing historical and geographical surveys of the Nansha Islands, and published by the government map publishing review agency Rename and examine the names of groups and individuals in the South China Sea islands including the Nansha Islands.During World War II, Japan invaded China's Nansha Islands. China has made unremitting efforts to recover the Nansha Islands occupied by Japan. In 1943, the "Cairo Declaration" of China, the United States and Britain declared that one of the purposes of the war was to "return the territory stolen by Japan from China, such as Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Penghu Islands, to China." At that time, the Nansha Islands were placed under the jurisdiction of Taiwan by Japan. The Cairo Declaration required the return of China ’s territory to include the Nansha Islands. The Potsdam Announcement of 1945 reconfirmed China's position on recovering lost ground. According to the spirit of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, China recaptured the Nansha Islands in 1946, and at the same time declared to the world through a series of legal procedures that China would resume the exercise of its sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, including holding reception ceremonies and sending troops to the Nansha Islands Archipelago map, rename the names of Nansha Islands and their groups and individuals, compile and publish the earliest Nansha Islands Geography.After the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the Nansha Islands were placed under the jurisdiction of Guangdong Province and Hainan Province successively. The Chinese government has always insisted and took practical actions to actively maintain its sovereignty over the Nansha Islands.In summary, the Chinese government enjoys indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. Some countries claim that the Nansha Islands are within their continental shelf or exclusive economic zone, and accordingly claim sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. According to international law and the law of the sea, territorial sovereignty is the foundation of maritime rights and interests, and maritime rights and interests are derived from territorial sovereignty. No country can extend its maritime jurisdiction to the territory of another country, and it has no right to invade the territory of another country on the grounds of claiming an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. In short, any country ’s military occupation or other actions on the islands and reefs of the Nansha Islands are violations of China ’s territorial sovereignty and are illegal and invalid in international law. They do not constitute a basis for claiming territorial claims, nor can they change China ’s position on the Nansha Islands. The indisputable legal fact of sovereignty.4. China's basic position on the South China Sea issue and its policy proposition to resolve the Nansha disputeThe Chinese government has always advocated the peaceful settlement of international disputes through negotiation. According to this spirit, China has resolved the territorial boundary issue in a fair, reasonable and friendly manner through bilateral consultations and negotiations with some neighboring countries. This position also applies to the Nansha Islands. China is willing to communicate with relevant countries on the basic principles and legal systems established in accordance with recognized international law and modern ocean law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The article entitled "THE PHILIPPINES AS HAVEN FOR REFUGEES" from the Presidential Museum and Library | Presidential Museum and Library should adequately answer the question.An excerpt: "Owing to its background as a country that struggled for its own independence, it included the authority for the President of the Philippines to offer asylum to stateless persons or other refugees; this strong commitment was ratified further by the country being a signatory of the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and of the 1967 Protocol, thus enabling the Philippines to become a refuge to many kinds of refugees in many instances in the past."Emphasis is mine.Bonus:Here's also an interesting piece from Rappler: TIMELINE: Philippine laws and policies on refugees. Written by Zebadiah Cañero.-------------------Here are laws and policies set by the previous government. See how they covered the groups of refugees that fled to the country.August 21, 1937President Manuel Quezon issued Proclamation No. 173With Chinese refugees fleeing from the advancing Imperial Japanese forces in mainland China, Quezon directed government agencies in Manila, Baguio, Rizal, and the Mountain Province to provide aid for refugees especially Filipinos and Americans in China who fled to our country.The German ship Gneisenau. Photo from Wikimedia CommonsSeptember 8, 1937Quezon authorized the admission of ethnic German and German Jews refugeesQuezon allowed a large group of ethnic German and German Jews to enter Manila aboard the Norddeutscher Lloyd steamship, Gneisenau. He also formed the Jewish Refugee Committee to assist these refugees.November 10, 1937Quezon declared a policy of absolute neutrality during the Spanish Civil WarIn a letter sent to the Rector of the San Juan de Letran College, Quezon said he and the government do not, and cannot, approve of the Philippines "being converted into a theater of propaganda." He further explained that the Philippines has no reason to take sides, and said that our interest must be limited only to see peace be re-established in Spain.February 15, 1939The Philippine government opened its doors to political refugees with professional qualificationsQuezon sent a message to Congress and urged members to allow more German Jewish professionals, initially planning on taking as much as 10,000 refugees – resettling them in farming communities in hopes of helping the Philippine economy.President Manuel Quezon dedicated the Marikina Hall to refugees. Photo from Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP)April 23, 1940Quezon donated Marikina land to the Jewish refugeesSeven-and-a-half hectares of Quezon’s country estate were donated as working farms for the refugees. He said in his speech, “It is my hope, and indeed my expectation, that the people of the Philippines will have in the future every reason to be glad that when the time of need came, their country was willing to extend a hand of welcome.”July 1, 1940Quezon signed Proclamation No. 570With the expansion of the Imperial Japanese, residents of the then British colony of Hong Kong fled to the Philippines, which led Quezon to sign the proclamation.August 26, 1940Quezon signed Commonwealth Act 613 (The Philippines Immigration Act of 1940)The law stated: For humanitarian reasons, and when not opposed to the public interest, [the President has the power] to admit aliens who are refugees for religious, political, or racial reasons, in such classes of cases and under such conditions as he may prescribe.June 21, 1949The Cabinet approved the request of the International Refugee Organization for a 4-month extension of the stay of the White Russian refugeesIn December 1948, White Russian refugees fled to the Philippines in fear of persecution from the Bolshevik Red Army. President Elpidio Quirino offered to the 8,000 evacuees the choice to stay in the former naval base of Tubabao Island in Guiuan, Samar. A 4-month extension was granted to them in 1949, and some were even allowed to visit Manila. (READ: PH a 'paradise' for White Russian refugees and IN PHOTOS: The life of White Russian refugees in PH)August 21, 1979President Ferdinand Marcos issued Executive Order No. 554, establishing a Task Force on International Refugee Assistance and AdministrationThis executive order was issued to build refugee processing centers and to work with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in helping refugees. It assigned Ulugan Bay and Tara Island in Palawan as preliminary refugee processing centers.The Philippine Refugee Processing Center. Photo from Wikimedia CommonsJanuary 21, 1980The Philippine Refugee Processing Center was inaugurated in Morong, BataanThis served as a holding center for Indochinese refugees prior to their relocation and settlement in the US, Canada, France, Australia, and other countries. It was funded by the UNHCR, and also provided English as a Second Language (ESL) classes and primary education programs.July 22, 1981The Philippines acceded to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 ProtocolIts legal framework was implemented through Department Order No. 94 issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which established a refugee status determination procedure.August 31, 1987President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 304EO 304 authorized the Task Force on Refugee Assistance and Administration and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to respectively issue identity papers and travel documents to refugees staying in the Philippines. The Task Force was reconstituted the following year.March 7, 1995President Fidel Ramos ordered the closure of the Philippine Refugee Processing Center by virtue of Memorandum Order No. 267Due to the significant decrease of refugees, the UNHCR – which exclusively funds the refugee center – asked that the refugee center be closed. The facilities were then turned over to the Philippine government to be used for other purposes, once no longer required for the refugee program. It provided food, shelter, and education to about 400,000 refugees.The Vietnamese Village in Palawan. Photo from City Government of Puerto Princesa1996"Viet Ville” was established in Palawan.With the Indochinese refugee program in Palawan slated to be closed by the Ramos administration, some refugees were still left in Palawan – including the Vietnamese refugees who were prevented from visiting their families in Vietnam due to issues of the legality of their status. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) requested the Philippine government to allow 2,710 Vietnamese refugees to remain in the Philippines indefinitely, leading to the establishment of “Viet Ville” – a Vietnamese refugee settlement in Palawan sponsored by Vietnamese communities around the world and supported by the Center for Assistance to Displaced Persons (CADP) of the CBCP.1998The Department of Justice formed a Refugee Processing Unit (RPU)The unit, however, did not grant authorization to cater to the needs of stateless individuals.May 30, 2011President Benigno Aquino III signed the instrument of ratification of the 1954 UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless PersonsIt was submitted to the UN on September 22, 2011. It resulted to the change in name of the RPU to the Refugee and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (RSPPU).October 18, 2012The Department of Justice issues Department Circular No. 058 – Rules on “Establishing the Refugee and Stateless Status Determination Procedure”Under these rules, groups of refugees and stateless persons will be given access to an efficient process application for the granting of a refugee or a stateless status.May 18, 2015The Philippines opened its doors to the Rohingya "boat people"The government announced it is open to providing shelter to up to 3,000 "boat people" from Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Note: I always appreciate edits due to my lack of ability to write in English language. Also, it’s a long post so if anyone wants to learn my short answer, just check the last part.While there are many answers to this question, not many of them contains citations from primary sources which written by people who saw the mentioned events. In my answer, I’ll try to quote contemporary authors of three parties, Romans, Catholics and Muslims on this topic.But first, I would like to object some ideas about how Crusaders didn’t remain in Constantinople but Ottomans did or how Crusaders never thought about stay in Contantinople but they only wanted to loot and go back to where they actually belong.Crusaders did remain in Constantinople and sure they would like to stay there for good. Otherwise we need to overlook on great efforts made by mostly Nicaean emperors during the time between 1204 - 1258. Let’s see what happened on the Eastern Front during these times.1205 - Attaleia (Tr. Antalya), a very important port city in mountainous Southern Anatolia is conquered by Seljuks.1214 - Sinope (Tr. Sinop), the only natural harbour city on the coast of Black Sea is conquered by Seljuks.1221 - Kalonoros (Tr. Alanya), another very important port city in Southern Anatolia is conquered by Seljuks who immediately built an arsenal in this new city.1224 - Seljuks, who feel rather cozy on their Western borders, had no problem to annex Artuqid lands, thus solidify their rule over Turkic principialities.1227 - With their new navy, thanks to the conquest of Sinop, Seljuks conquered parts of Crimea which is nowadays de jure in Ukraine, de facto in Russia.1228 - Seljuks annexed another prominent Turkic principiality, Mengujekids.1239 - Due to relatively safe position of Anatolia, Turkic people who’re not very happy with Mongol conquests starts the second wave of Turkic migration to Anatolia and because of they’re mostly nomads clashes between settled people of Anatolia and them turned into a massive rebellion under the name of Baba Ishaq. Remnants of Paulicians, Tondrakians, Tengriists, Heterodox Muslims and of course adventurers joined the fray and thanks to Crusaders’ help, Seljuks managed to save themselves. But one of the tribes who came to Anatolia was a branch of Kayı tribe under the leadership of Ertughrul Ghazi, father of Osman I the Black and surely they would be quite a trouble in future.1243 - Seljuks lost the Battle of Kösedağ against Mongols, but they still preserved much of their troops untouched. They became a tributary state to Mongolian Empire.1258 - Seljuks were divided to two by Mongols, thus their power started to vanish rapidly. But now there’re much more people of Turkic stock in Anatolia and also Mongolian power starts to weaken which will be obvious when two years later, another Turkic ruler of Egypt, Qutuz and his subordinate Baybars beat the Mongolian Army in the fields of Ain Jalud.When the Nicaean Emperor, Mikhael VIII Paleologos took Constantinople from Latins and entered the city, Morea, the Greek heartland was still in Latins’ hands. In Crimea, there was no Roman presence. In Epirus, despotates were under pressure from Serbs. No major ports on the Black Sea shore were under his direct control. Nomadic, battle-hardened Turks were roaming the Anatolian countryside freely due to power vacuum. Roman Empire was surely and irreversibly on the decline. Constantinople’s pre-1204 population was around 300.000 but in 1453 that number would be around 80.000.While 1453 is named as “the conquest”, events in 1204 are somehow named as “the sack” and I believe this is a great example of Western bias and eulogy when it comes to matters of history. Incompetence of Latin rulers doesn’t make a 54 years long occupation a less state or conquest. Israel is an only 70 years old state, but no sane person has doubts about its sovereignty.But let’s return the main answer. How bad were these two events starting with the former.Eugene Delacroix - Entry of the Crusaders in ConstantinopleConstantinopolitana, civitas diu profana (Constantinople, ungodly city) - Chorus from a song sung by Crusaders after the capture of the city.Geoffroi De Villehardouin, a knight and chronograph from France was one of the crusaders. His account is one of the most important primary sources on this topic and he gives his own details about the battle and the aftermath:“During that night, towards the quarters of Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, certain people, whose names are unknown to me, being in fear lest the Greeks should attack them, set fire to the buildings between themselves and the Greeks. And the city began to take fire, and to burn very direfully ; and it burned all that night and all the next day, till vesper-time. And this was the third fire there had been in Constantinople since the Franks arrived in the land; and more houses had been burned in the city than there are houses in any three of the greatest cities in the kingdom of France.Villehardouin also states;At the same time that this palace was surrendered to the Marquis Boniface of Montferrat, did the palace of Blachernae surrender to Henry, the brother of Count Baldwin of Flanders, on condition that no hurt should be done to the bodies of those who were therein. There too was found much treasure, not less than in the palace of Bucoleon. Each garrisoned with his own people the castle that had been surrendered to him, and set a guard over the treasure. And the other people, spread abroad throughout the city, also gained much booty. The, booty gained was so great that no onene could tell you the end of it: gold and silver, and vessels, and precious stones, and samite, and cloth of silk, and robes vair and grey, and ermine, and every choicest thing found upon the earth. And well does Geoffry of Villehardouin, the Marshal of Champagne, bear witness, that never, since the world was created, had so much booty been won in any city.Every one took quarters where he pleased, and of lodgings there was no stint. So the host of the pilgrims and of the Venetians found quarters, and greatly did they rejoice and give thanks because of the victory God had vouchsafed to them for those who before had been poor were now in wealth and luxury. Thus they celebrated Palm Sunday and the Easter Day following (25th April 1204) in the joy and honour that God had bestowed upon them. And well might they praise our Lord, since in all the host there were no more than twenty thousand armed men, one with another, and with the help of God they had conquered four hundred thousand men, or more, and in the strongest city in all the world yea, a great city and very well fortified.Nicetas Choniates, an Anatolian born Roman, provides a different kind of perspective due to his eyewitnessing:On that day on which the City fell, the despoilers took up quarters in the houses spread out in all directions, seized everything inside as plunder, and interrogated their owners as to the whereabouts of their hidden treasures, beating some, holding gentle converse with many, and using threats against all. Taking possession of these things, they put them on display, both those furnishings that were in plain view and which were brought forward by their owners and those valuables which they found themselves after prolonged searching. They spared nothing and shared none of the belongings with their owners, nor were they willing to share food and house with them; and because they showed them utter disdain and refused to mingle with them, taking them captive while heaping abuse upon them and casting them out, the chiefs decided to allow those who so desired to depart from the City. Gathered into groups, they went forth wrapped in tatters, wasted away from fasting, ashen in complexion, their visages corpse-like, and their eyes bloodshot, shedding more blood than tears. Some made their possessions the subject of lamentation, while others said nothing as though the loss of their belongings were a matter of no distress whatsoever; some bemoaned the abduction and deflowering of a beautiful young daughter of marriageable age or bewailed the loss of a spouse, while others moaned some other calamity as they made their way.He describes more;How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-Christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced bv a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.Nor can the violation of the Great Church ( Hagia Sophia) be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so great and infinite splendor.No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, the groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, the separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, bow great the distress!Abu Shama, an Arab chronicler from Damascus tells us the effect of the occupation he witnessed with these words:‘The Franks took possession of the kingdom, looted its treasures and all the fixtures and marbles of its churches. They then brought them to the lands of Egypt and Syria, where they were sold. Damascus has seen plenty of that marble.But Latins were thinking that their actions were rightful and just. Let’s see how they thought about the events.Geoffroi De Villehardouin: “The city since the Greeks had seceded from the Church of Rome. ‘We therefore tell you,' said the clergy, 'that this battle is lawful and just. And if you conquer this land with the right intention of bringing it under the authority of Rome, all those of you who die after making confession will benefit from the indulgences granted by the Pope.’”Gunther of Pairis: They (Crusaders) saw themselves trapped in a hostile land, in the midst of a most wicked race ... ; from the new king and his fellow citizens they expected certain death. . . . What could the pilgrims do, or what hope could they have, caught in such a situation without any safe place to take refuge or to catch their breath for an hour or so from the enemies' harassment?Robert of Clairi: "For anciently they of the city had been obedient to the law of Rome, but now they are disobedient, saying that the laws of Rome are invalid. And the bishops said that on this account they were right to attack them, and that it was not at all a sin, but rather a meritorious deed.”Crusaders, who sent letters to Pope Innocent III, didn’t mention any “unlawful” events to the Holy Father. But with time, Innocent III learnt about true nature of the conquest, thanks to accounts of Bishop Conrad of Halberstadt and Bishop Martin of Pairis, his opinions changed. Still, he neither excommunicated them nor requested a withdrawal from the City. But he recognized the victorious crusaders sovereignty over “a wicked race” and thought that it would be beneficial for incoming crusades and reconquista of Holy Lands once more. He still harshly critisized one of the legates of the holy see, named Peter in 12 July 1204 with these words;How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, whose swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, are now dripping with Christian blood ­ they have spared neither age nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics. .Furthermore, under what guise can we call upon the other Western peoples for aid to the Holy Land and assistance to the Empire of Constantinople? When the Crusaders, having given up the proposed pilgrimage, return absolved to their homes; when those who plundered the aforesaid Empire turn back and come home with their spoils, free of guilt; will not people then suspect that these things have happened, not because of the crime involved, but because of your deed? Let the Lord's word not be stifled in your mouth. Be not like a dumb dog, unable to bark. Rather, let them speak these things publicly, let them protest before everyone, so that the more they rebuke you before God and on God's account, the more they will find you simply negligent. As for the absolution of the Venetian people being falsely accepted, against ecclesiastical rules, we will not at present argue with you....In the end, Pope Innocent’s thoughts would be proven right. The loot of the city almost stripped her naked and neither holy places nor imperial holdings would be spared. I suggest Jonathan Phillip’s works on the degree of looting due to his objective use of primary sources.While mentioning Pope Innocent III, we need to add that Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople seized to exist in its seat and Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople was established by the victors. For years, Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate would remain in Nicaea.It’s easy to understand that Romans couldn’t gather their strength after this event. Emperors couldn’t use the Great Palace due to impossibility to maintain its expenses. Even city’s waterworks suffered from a significant damage, during the Black Plague while half of Constantinople’s population was perished, some Ottoman sources doesn’t even mention or only mention briefly about grave effects of the epidemic. At this point, I think it’s alright to quote a prominent American historian with Greek descent, Speros Vryonis, to summarize the effects of 1204:The emperor, patriarch, and Theodore Lascaris, along with other Greeks, fled to Asia Minor and the Balkans to organize resistance there, and the Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the church’s holy vessels.The estrangement of east and west, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention. - Byzantium and Europe, Speros VryonisAt the 15th century, Constantinople was described by the poem recited by Mehmed II, after his first sight of the Great Palace.Perdedari mikoned der kasr-ı kayzer ankebutBum nevbet mizedend der târem-i EfrâsiyâbSpider is the chamberlain in Caesar’s palaceIn the place of Afrasiyab, owls are keeping watch.Benjamin Constant - Entry of Mahomet II into ConstantinopleYa ben şehri alırım, ya da şehir beni. Ölü veya diri. (Either I take the City, or the City takes me, dead or alive.) - Mehmed II according to Doukas.When Mehmed II inherited the throne in 1451 from his father, Murad II, he was already accustomed to sit on it. After Peace of Szeged in 1444, Murad II had abdicated the throne in favor of his ambitious and intelligent son with trusting the Catholics would keep their promises but other party saw this event as an opportunity and a league of Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Croatia, Wallachia, Moldavia and Bohemia formed up quickly to take Ottoman holdings from this inexperienced sultan. But after the defeats in Varna in 1444 and Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448 Catholic power in Eastern Europe under the leadership of charismatic Hunyadi Janos started to have troubled times. Polish and Hungarian thrones stood idle for a time. And these were rare opportunities that the destiny can provide to any ambitious ruler.In Constantinople, another ruler, a member of respectable Paleologoi dynasty, Konstantinos XI Paleologos was trying to find a peaceful solution for his state’s fragile position with hoping that the new sultan’s frame of mind would be similar to his father’s chivalry and trustworthiness. But his hopes are in vain. Like Flavius Romulus Augustulus, Konstantinos XI would have the same destiny to be the last Roman emperor and the one who carries the name of the founder of the empire.Because of there’re great amount of sources on the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, I will skip to another series of quotations about what happened after the conquest from primary sources from different accounts. Let’s start with the viewpoint of victors like I did about 1204. I’ll choose the radically different accounts from each other and I’ll trust the readers’ ability to find the middle ground.While there’re also great historiographers like Tursun Bey about the conquest of Istanbul, I’ll choose Yahyaoğlu Derviş Ahmed, a.k.a. Aşıkpaşazade for he’s at the same age with his rival contemporary Mikhael Doukas and also a less politically connected person. But I’ve to say that, there’re no contradictions between both of these men. While Tursun Bey is a fierce supporter of Mahmud Pasha, Aşıkpaşazade, as a commoner chooses a much more neutral tone and reflects the Turkish point of view better;They came close to walls of Istanbul. They sieged the city from the land and also with ships from the sea. Four hundred ships joined the fray from the sea of Marmara and seventy ships were carried from the land to Golden Horn. Warriors arose, they lifted their banners high and joined to navy close to walls. For fifty days and nights they fought. At the fifty-first day the Sultan said the City is now available to loot and he gave permission to pillage. They charged. They conquered the fortress at Tuesday. Valuable booty is taken. Gold, silver, jewels and valuable fabrics were on the market. They enslaved the heathens and holy warriors embraced their beauties.I need to say, most of the time battles (unless they’re good examples of tactical talent or the loot gained from them are great) are not important points in Turkish historiography. During my personal and uneducated researches on Turkish sources, I realized that most of the time Turks don’t give much details on battles. They’re like “heathens were drunk, it was night time, we descended on them horseback, we won”, “we feigned a retreat, they bought it, then we fought fiercely, they ran” or “heathens stood firm, they fought better, we lost.” For example, in this piece which I presented, the author tells about Mehmed II ordered carrying the ships from the land to Golden Horn like it’s pretty common in warfare. No details, it just happened. What’s surprising here?But even from this piece of work, we see that, for quite a long time, Mehmed II didn’t want to sack the city but because of the prolonged siege he had to present something to his army to boost their morale. According to his own laws of war, he had to offer surrender only once and after its refusal the army would have right to sack the city. Still, he tried to delay to give the right to his warriors as much as possible.Let’s look at the Roman side now. Doukas, a staunch enemy of Mehmed II, starts with critisizing his own countrymen for not accepting the union of Catholic and Orthodox churches for the calamity;0 miserable Romans! 0 wretches! The temple which only yesterday you called a cave and altar of heretics, and not one of you would enter so as not to be defiled because the liturgy was offered by clerics who had embraced Church Union, and now, because of the impending wrath you push your way inside, seeking to be saved. But not even the impending just wrath could move your hearts to peace. And even if, in such a calamity, an angel were to descend from heaven and say to you, "If you will accept the Union and a state of peace in the Church, I will expel the enemy from the City," even then you would not assent. And if you did assent, it would only be a lie! They who but a few days before had said, "It would be better to fall into the hands of the Turks than into the clutches of the Franks," knew this was true.And he continues with describing the enslaved population;Pillaging, slaughtering, and taking captives on the way, the Turks reached the temple before the termination of the first hour. The gates were barred, but they broke them with axes. They entered with swords flashing and, beholding the myriad populace, each Turk caught and bound his own captive. There was no one who resisted or who did not surrender himself like a sheep. Who can recount the calamity of that time and place? Who can describe the wailing and the cries of the babes, the mothers' tearful screams and the fathers' lamentations? The commonest Turk sought the most tender maiden. The lovely nun, who heretofore belonged only to the one God, was now seized and bound by another master. The rapine caused the tugging and pulling of braids of hair, the exposure of bosoms and breasts, and outstretched arms. The female slave was bound with her mistress, the master with his slave, the archimandrite with the doorkeeper, tender youths with virgins, who had never been exposed to the sun and hardly ever seen by their own fathers, were dragged about, forcibly pushed together and flogged. The despoiler led them to a certain spot, and placing them in safekeeping, returned to take a second and even a third prize. The abductors, the avengers of God, were in a great hurry. Within one hour they had bound everyone, the male captives with cords and the women with their own veils. The infinite chains of captives who like herds of kine and flocks of sheep poured out of the temple and the temple sanctuary made an extraordinary spectacle! They wept and wailed and there was none to show them mercy.Doukas also gives details about the fate of the holy places;What became of the temple treasures? What shall I say and how shall I say it? My tongue is stuck fast in my larynx. I am unable to draw breath through my sealed mouth. In that same hour the dogs hacked the holy icons to pieces, removing the ornaments. As for the chains, candelabra, holy altar coverings, and lamps, some they destroyed and the rest they seized. All the precious and sacred vessels of the holy sacristy, fashioned from gold and silver and other valuable materials, they collected in an instant, leaving the temple desolate and naked; absolutely nothing was left behind.I must say that, Doukas was in Didymoteicho (Tr. Dimetoka) when Mehmed II started to siege and he lived the rest of his life in the isle of Lesbos after the fall of the city. So, there may be doubts about his accounts. Also we need to mention that he was a servant of Domenico Gattilusio who was, obviously, a Genoan and we may think that because of his sponsor, Doukas was keen to be more critical about complainants on the union of two churches. Doukas, may not be the most trustable source when it comes to schism between churches and reactions of people of Constantinople about this topic.Let’s come to Nicolo Barboro, an actual eyewitness Venetian and die-hard rival of Genoese. He starts to tell his memories about the day of conquest with these words;On the twenty-ninth of May, the last day of the siege, our Lord God decided, to the sorrow of the Greeks, that He was willing for the city to fall on this day into the hands of Mahomet Bey the Turk son of Murat, after the fashion and in the manner described below; and also our eternal God was willing to make this decision in order to fulfill all the ancient prophecies, particularly the first prophecy made by Saint Constantine, who is on horseback on a column by the Church of Saint Sophia of this city, prophesying with his hand and saying, “From this direction will come the one who will undo me,” pointing to Anatolia, that is Turkey.Of course, for a Latin it would be weird to mention 1204 and realize that the doom which undo Constantinople came from the West two and a half centuries ago. He continues his memoires about enslaved populace and attrocities with these words;But when the men in these ships saw that the Christians had lost Constantinople, and that the standard of Mahomet Bey the Turk was raised over the principal tower of the city, and that the standards of Saint Mark and of the Emperor had been cut down and lowered, then they all disembarked. And at the same time all those in the fleet on the Dardanelles side disembarked and left their ships by the shore without anyone in them, because they were all running furiously like dogs into the city to seek out gold, jewels and other treasure, and to take merchants prisoner. They sought out the monasteries, and all the nuns to the fleet and ravished and abused by the Turks, and then sold at auction for slaves throughout Turkey, and all the young women also were ravished and then sold for whatever they would fetch, although some of them preferred to cast themselves into the wells and drown rather than fall into the hands of the Turks, as did a number of married women also. The Turks loaded all their ships with prisoners and with an enormous quantity of booty. Their practice was, that when they went into a house, at once they raised up a flag with their emblem on it, and when other Turks saw this flag flying, they left this house alone, and went in search of another house without a flag, and so they put their flags everywhere, even on the monasteries and churches. As far as I can estimate, there would have been two hundred thousand of these flags flying on the houses all over Constantinople: some houses had as many as ten, because of the excitement which the Turks felt at having won such a great victory. For the rest of the day these flags were kept flying on the houses, and all through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city. The blood flowed in the city like rainwater in the gutters after a sudden storm, and the corpses of Turks and Christians were thrown into the Dardanelles, where they floated out to sea like melons along a canal. No one could hear any news of the Emperor, what he had been doing, or whether he was dead or alive, but some said that his body had been seen among the corpses, and it was said that he had hanged himself at the moment when the Turks broke in at the San Romano gate.But Giorgios Sphrantzis had an opinion about what happened to Konstantinos XI Paleologos, son of Helena as the prophecy foretold.On Tuesday May 29, early in the day, the sultan took possession of our City, in this time of capture my late master and emperor, Lord Konstantinos was killed. I was not at his side at that hour but had been inspecting another part of the City, according to his orders.Georgios Sphrantzis continues his work with critisizing his Christian brethren, not only Catholics but also Orthodox.No aid whatsoever was dispatched by other Christians. On the contrary, an official of the Sultan was sent to the Serbian despot Lord Giorgios in order to ask him to be the intermediary for the treaty with the Hungarians.And he continues further;Although it was possible for the despot of Serbia to send money secretly from many places and similarly men, did any one see a single penny? On the contrary, they provided huge financial aid and many men to the Sultan who was besieging the City. Thus the Turks were able to boast in triumph that even Serbia was against us.Ouch. But, let’s return to Constantinople’s fate. All accounts, by both Turks and Christians, mention that the sultan left the city to his soldiers for three days according to laws of war and then he entered the city himself. One of the first actions he took was to enact a ban to harm the city but not the already enslaved population. Sphrantzis tells about the sultan’s entrance to the City and his orders after that;On the third day after the fall of our city, the Sultan celebrated his victory with a great, joyful triumph. He issued a proclamation: the citizens of all ages who had managed to escape detection were to leave their hiding places throughout the city and come out into the open, as they were to remain free and no question would be asked. He further declared the restoration of houses and property to those who had abandoned our city before the siege. If they returned home, they would be treated according to their rank and religion, as if nothing had changed.Also about Patriarchate of Constantinople;He issued orders for the election of a patriarch, according to custom and protocol, as our patriarch had passed away sometime earlier. The high clerics who happened to be present, and the very few members of the church and of the lay population designated the scholar Georgios Skholarios and elected him patriarch under the name Gennadios.The sultan gave written decrees with royal authority and undersigned by him to the patriarch, which ensured that no man would hinder or annoy him; moreover, the patriarch was absolved of taxation and tribute. The sultan further declared that all future patriarchs and their high clerics would enjoy the same privileges and would be similarly immune from taxation and tribute forever.Now, after I presented Doukas, the great historian who wasn’t living in Constantinople during the conquest and sponsored by a Genoese patrician, I thought that it’s crucial to present the memoirs of Georgios Sphrantzis, whose children’s godfather was the emperor Konstantinos XI Paleologos himself and saw all of his household sold to slavery. One might think that Sphrantzis had every reason to be a staunch enemy of the sultan and truly Mehmed II is an ambitious and cunning character in every primary source. But still, Sphrantzis follows a more objective path.Now, in conclusion, what do we know?Both events were acts of conquest.Both conquests resulted with great tragedies for the losing side.While crusaders took captives, Turks took slaves.In both events, rape and pillage cases occured.While Constantinople was a bastion for Christianity in the East in 1204, it was just an annoying node in the middle of Ottoman State in 1453.Turks acted according to their laws of war which are well-known by Romans, Crusaders didn’t act according to their laws of war.Patriarchate of Constantinople remained in its seat in 1453, but replaced with a Latin Patriarchate in 1204.Constantinople of 1204 was a much prestigious, crowded and functional city than Constantinople of 1453.Roman Empire lost an irreversible amount of opportunities to reclaim its majesty due to 1204 events while it ceased to exist after 1453.Roman Empire, in their direst time of need, blackmailed by Catholic church to perform a common mass in vain, while Ottomans recognized the Patriarchate’s authority and didn’t put them responsible to pay even the jizya tax, while it was perfectly legal according to Islamic Law.And the rest belongs to subjective opinions of readers. As I mentioned in some of my answers before, I believe the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 was one of the main causes of the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Thus, it was worse for the City.